Eine deutsche Version dieses Beitrags findest du hier.

The word “ideology” comes with a lot of baggage. For some, an “ideology” is a dogmatic dedication to a set of beliefs; “rational” people don’t have an ideology, they just have beliefs they arrived at “rationally”!

I don’t think about it that way. For me, an ideology is the model for viewing reality that a person builds out of their basic assumptions. The most interesting of these assumptions are the ones that reflect a person’s values. Viewed in this way, it’s clear that everyone has an ideology because everyone has a set of values. To claim that one is “free from ideology” would be to claim that one has perfect, undistorted insight into the nature of reality (and that rational disagreement about values and how to pursue them is impossible).

“Accusations of argumentation determined by ideology are frequently found in political discourse. This implies that a point of view is not valid because it is based on a political ideology. One’s own position, on the other hand, is implicitly or explicitly presented as being based on a sober analysis of truth, common sense, or ethics that cannot be questioned. In many cases, however, the respective opposing side could claim this for itself with the same right.”

– a tidy description of the deadlock we find ourselves in if we claim to be free of ideology that I stole from Wikipedia

We all bring preconceived notions to the table, and examining those critically can help avoid talking past one another. When talking to people from your own club or meeting HEMA practitioners from different club cultures, you will frequently encounter perspectives that differ from your own. Understanding their and your own “fencing ideology” may lead to more fruitful conversations.

Of course, just because different opinions exist, doesn’t mean all opinions are equally valid. My goal with this post is to promote examining nuances and one’s own biases, not to reduce all disagreements to unresolvable relativism.

Common points of contention

Here are a few examples of differing perspectives I’ve heard in the historical fencing community. Of course, most people don’t fall into the neat categories I’ve outlined below but rather have a mix of opinions on these subjects.

Please note: The opinions expressed here are not necessarily my own!

• Protective gear
  • Protective gear is good
    • Protective gear reduces the risk of injury
    • Protective gear allows us to fail safely (and since failure is necessary for learning, it lets us learn better)
    • Genuine fear for one’s safety is not conducive to a good learning environment
  • Protective gear is bad
    • Modern protective gear is ahistorical
    • Protective gear restricts your range of motion in a way that makes historical technique too difficult
    • Protective gear gives you a false sense of security (and as a result increases the risk of injury)
    • Genuine fear for one’s safety is necessary for a good learning environment
• Tolerance for injuries
  • High tolerance for injury
    • Pain is a good teacher
    • You should push yourself to your limits, which means sometimes a bad injury will occur
    • It’s badass to get nasty injuries
  • Low tolerance for injury
    • Pain is not a good teacher – in fact, it discourages trying new things
    • You should train at an intensity where it is highly unlikely that you’ll injure or get injured
    • Nasty injuries are a symptom of poor control on the part of you or your training partners
• The significance of sparring / uncooperative drills / competition
  • Sparring is necessary
    • Preparing for free fencing is the entire purpose of fencing training
    • Uncooperative drills are necessary to learn the skills we’re trying to teach
    • Too much emphasis on cooperative drills leads to bad habits
    • Experience is more important than knowledge
  • Sparring is unnecessary
    • Free fencing is unrealistic
    • Free fencing is not the goal of our training
    • The best way to learn is by starting with cooperative drills and only once cooperative drills have been mastered should the student move on to less cooperative drills
    • Too much emphasis on sparring leads to bad habits
    • Knowledge is more important than experience
• Form vs. Function
  • Focus on form
    • Good function is the natural consequence of good form
    • Internalize the ideal movement pattern, and then you can up the intensity
    • If it doesn’t look like the pictures in the book, you’re not doing it properly
  • Focus on function
    • Good form is the natural consequence of good function
    • There is no ideal movement pattern, there are only goals and movement patterns that are better or worse at achieving those goals
    • If you’re achieving your training goals without hurting yourself or others, it doesn’t matter whether it looks like the pictures in the book
• The significance of academic knowledge
  • Academic knowledge is necessary
    • It’s not “historical” fencing if you can’t talk about the historical context your fencing comes from
    • Only a very knowledgeable master will know what would or wouldn’t work “in a real sword fight”
    • If you can’t name the techniques in your historical source, how can you say your fencing is based on that source?
    • Being able to recreate a perfect rendition of the techniques as described in the sources is the whole point of historical fencing
    • Historical research is part of the hobby
  • Academic knowledge is unnecessary
    • Fencing is a practical art; you don’t need an intellectual understanding of the art to be good at it
    • You can test whether something would work in free fencing, so deferring to the knowledge of a master is unnecessary
    • Some people are just interested in fighting with swords and don’t really care about the history and that’s okay
    • Knowing the name of a technique or how to do a picture-perfect choreography has little bearing on whether or not you’re a good fencer
    • Historical research is something researchers do – fencers fence

Certain beliefs tend to cluster into common constellations. For example, a group that shuns the use of protective gear but also has a low tolerance for injury will probably have a pedagogy that focuses on (semi-)cooperative or solo drills.

What do you think?

I’ve created a list of open-ended questions to get you thinking about your own “fencing ideology”.

Creating such a list is tricky, because the questions you ask might reflect your ideology! For example, the question “Should a fencer put their martial skill to the test?” implies you think fencing involves martial skill, but not everyone will agree with that. Maybe you can figure out my ideology from the way I’ve phrased the questions! 😉

• What are the goals of your historical fencing practice?
• What goals do you think a historical person from the era you study would have had for their fencing practice?
• What does the “historical” in “historical fencing” mean?
• What does the “fencing” in “historical fencing” mean?
• How should fencing be taught? Be learned?
• What makes a good fencer?
• Is academic knowledge (the ability to recall facts, names, techniques, etc.) necessary to be a good historical fencer?
• Can you “rank” fencers? If so, how?
• What does “good fencing” look like?
• What is “good form” in fencing?
• What role should failure play in fencing practice? What are acceptable consequences of failure?
• What role should protective gear play in historical fencing?
• What role should sparring play in your fencing training?
• What does “sparring” mean in your training environment?
• What role should competition play in historical fencing?
• What does “fairness” mean in fencing? Is it possible to “cheat” at fencing?
• What kind of injuries are acceptable in a typical fencing session? What about in a tournament?
• Do you consider your fencing a martial art? A sport? Why or why not?
• Is historical fencing more similar to dancing or MMA?
• What role does athleticism play in fencing training?
• Do you have to break a sweat for a fencing session to be worthwhile?
• Can you learn fencing by yourself?
• What’s something you think is important to fencing that most people don’t consider important? Something other people think is important that you think isn’t?