02.11.2022 Today's teacher consultancy for the Drum Kempo Ju Jutsu and Fitness anti-bullying programme focused entirely on the issue of attitude. This is a far larger and deeper subject in the world of self-protection teaching, especially the specific area we explored today: throwing the switch. Attitude is of foundational importance in self-protection teaching and training. This is something I have repeated ad nauseum on this blog, through my blog, my books and on every single course I have run. "Throwing the switch" addresses that moment of taking action. It can mean standing up to peer pressure and moving away from a potentially dangerous situation or it can mean being pre-emptive. Besides handling the aftermath stage of a conflict situation, this is the hardest thing for most individuals to execute. In fact, many great self-protection teachers admit defeat on the quiet. It's easy to see why. Many students just simply accept they cannot take action in a violent situation. It's an area that Lt Col. Dave Grossman has provided excellent research material on. Even many trained soldiers have not been trained to pull the trigger and have shot over the heads of the enemy. Such situations have occurred in law enforcement too. Therefore, it doesn't seem like a stretch to assume that a good number of untrained individuals who have never experienced violence and exhibit a level of aversion for interpersonal violence that Grossman rightly considers to be phobic. This is the long-known result of being more civilised and creating safer societies, which is all wonderful until chaos lands in Pleasantville. There are different strategies adopted by individuals for taking action when action needs to be taken. Some teachers believe in summoning up aggression and using emotional energy. Certain individuals have plainly stated that you have to "hate a little". The problem with this approach is that such feelings are usually attached to an individual's personality. Tough people - for want of a better term - have often lived tough lives. Therefore, becoming aggressive is naturally attached to their ability to take action. It's a very natural and organic process. That is often what they are describing and trying to convey to students when they become self-protection teachers. Sometimes these individuals grow up as "natural fighters" - that is they have been around violence a lot during their formative years and then mould and channel this talent for violence through formal training. What needs to be asked here is can such a personally attached approach work for individuals with no experience in handling violence and have built up an extremely strong mental resilience to becoming involved in real fights? Let's look at individuals who handle other life-saving situations. Have all nurses, surgeons, paramedics and medical doctors grown up as instinctive carers who spent their formative years tending to others? For a large number of them this is probably the case but certainly not all and it's not a prerequisite for medical school. We know, even with First Aid courses being a very mainstream activity and common in the vast majority of places of work, that many individuals will still freeze and not act when a colleague is injured. However, we also know that robust training methods regularly turn out armies of "can do" medical professionals and carers who will not hesitate in taking action. So it isn't a superpower only a few are blessed with but an attitude that can be learned. There does appear to be a "fake it until you make it" approach taken by a good number of us when it comes to training others for very serious situations. Somehow making everything seem more real in training and bombarding each other with more science-based information will overcome any personality shortcoming that will get in the way of pulling the metaphorical trigger. However, sometimes all of this is just used to drown out the niggling doubt that the assembled peaceful students we are training will actually take action when the time is right. A more clinical and focused approach is required. Every responsible parent will know that there are many times when they have to do something that is unpleasant but will benefit their child. Perhaps it something as small as pulling a splinter. However, in that moment it is unlikely the parent is summoning up their inner demon to do the dirty work and shout down their cries of the pleading child. Rather they will steel themselves to switch off their emotional side, knowing the ultimate good in their action, and just do the task in hand. There is something in the rather trite sounding Nike slogan "Just do it". I tell my child and teenage students to make a conscious decision to be volunteers. If they know something will do them good but is uncomfortable or makes them afraid, push towards it and be the first up. It's a good habit and starts the behaviour of taking action. Then we move onto the actual tactics. I treat the fence concept as if it were an electric fence or, better still, a landmine metaphor. An individual sets their boundary and erects an obstacle of some description that confirms the physical intentions of a possible threat. Once the boundary is breached and the fence tripped all decision making has past. The protector has to instantly act without thinking. Here we mimic the primitive reptilian responses of crocodilians that instinctively react once their prey or enemy touches their tail or crosses into their ambush. We discussed some terminology. I use the expression "counter-assault" a lot. However, it sometimes falls foul of the reactive misunderstanding. Today we considered the semantics of "interception ambush". https://clubbchimera.com/services/
Comments