Good talk on blocks

Sensei Canna offers insight into the real world of self defense!

Moderator: Van Canna

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Mon Jul 17, 2017 3:29 am

The theory developed in this book is that confrontations
bring tension and fear, which inhibits effective violence; emotional
tension gets released into violent attack only where there is a weak
victim, or where the conflict is hedged round with social supports to make
it a staged fight fought within socially enforced limits.

Thus bluster is
likely to lead onward to a fight in one of these two circumstances:

First,
if one side feels much stronger than the other, at least at that moment, the
stronger launches an attack.

The bluster itself may provide the test of who
is weaker; wavering or cringing in the face of bluster, or retreating from
it, is one thing that can trigger an attack.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 45857
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Mon Jul 17, 2017 3:37 am

This is a critical factor for any of us in martial arts where there will be an 'expectation' by people that know you and are present...and even by the self...

Your 'karate self' as a separate entity, will have certain expectations of yourself...

Second, if there is a highly
interested audience, witnessing the buildup of boast and bluster, the scene
is set for a fight, and the principals may not be able to back out of it if
they wished.

The influence of the audience is all the more powerful when
at least one of the individuals in the confrontation is well known personally
to the audience; this gives the actor a stake in maintaining or losing
his reputation, putting costs of backing away from the fight in any manner
except one that is dramatically pleasing to the audience.

Thus we would
expect confrontations without audiences, or ones in which the audiences
themselves are anonymous, to have the least likelihood of escalating to
sustained violence.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 45857
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Mon Jul 17, 2017 3:40 am

Much of the time these conditions are lacking. The contestants are too
evenly matched, or feel only slight edges, not enough to give them confidence
in carrying on to an open and prolonged break.

Recall the conclusions
of chapter 2, that the reluctance to fight found so widely in military
combat is not just fear of being hurt, but a generalized social tension
arising from non-solidary interaction.

There is an underlying apprehension
of being the loser in a situational contest, that is, of losing something
more than bodily pains.


It is not just a matter of fighting or not fighting,
but of looking well in the process of doing it
.


And this affects just about anybody reading this forum, even as they might not know it yet...
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 45857
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Mon Jul 17, 2017 3:43 am

What leads
up to the brink is not the content of the quarrel or the nature of the insult,
but the fine-grained micro-details of how the confrontation is managed
from the point at which it has become a conscious matter of dispute.

Thus
it also sometimes happens—indeed, may well happen most of the time—
that antagonists find ways of altering the rhythm and focus of their hostile back-and-forth; perhaps not using the standard Goffmanian ritual repairs,
but on a tacit paralinguistic level, settle themselves back into a situational
equilibrium.

Even after the Goffmanian challenge and apology, or
the polite overlooking, have failed to work, there are processes of microde-
escalation through repetition, loss of cognitive content, and deflation
of anger into boredom.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 45857
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Mon Jul 17, 2017 4:04 am

The other condition for proceeding to violence is the audience encouraging
or even enforcing a fight.

But this condition, too, is often lacking;
audiences are frequently very uneasy in the near presence of threatened
violence—heated quarrels and bluster; they usually do not have the courage
to intervene but they shrink away where they can, not supporting but
abhorring the prospect of a fight.

To be sure, blusterers may stage their
action just for the sake of cowing an audience, but this is collusion, a
form of limited violence rather than all-out attack, not a descent into the
tunnel but a faking of it for the sake of the impression.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 45857
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Mon Jul 17, 2017 4:06 am

We are used to spectacular stories of violence, and among these are
accounts of crowds that egg on individuals to fight.

But such audiences
have special conditions: they are found particularly where both the larger
community and particular antagonists are in fairly dense networks of relationships,
so that individuals are known by name and have reputations
to be made, defended, or lost.

This is one of the structural features of the
inner-city neighborhoods where the code of the street is found.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 45857
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Mon Jul 17, 2017 4:12 am

For most of us in the martial arts, this 'education' by Collins is severely lacking...we may delude ourselves we know about violence...where we really don't know squat about it...other than dojo strutting and maybe muscle flexing on forums...

The Violent Few

VIOLENCE ALWAYS surges up in the form of a small proportion of people
who are actively violent, and an even smaller proportion who are competently
violent.

Surrounding them usually is a larger number of the emotionally
involved. Sometimes these are ostensibly part of the same team,
the same rioters, the same military or police force, the same gang, the
same fans or carousers, a larger group that we can call the nominally
violent.

Sometimes there are further layers of audience, supportive or
merely curious, and finally accidental bystanders.

And there can be layers
of opponents and victims on the other side, possibly with their own supporters,
back rows, and so forth.

All these together make up a social scene,
a structure pervaded with confrontational emotions; the violent few are
those who use this emotional field to their advantage.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 45857
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Mon Jul 17, 2017 4:17 am

To pinpoint the violent elite within the total population, we can use the
figure of the top 10 percent of prisoners who were exceedingly active in
violent crimes, or the 3 percent of persistent career criminals from their
juvenile years onward;

that gives us an estimate of somewhere between
0.6 to 1.2 percent of all males at the low end, and 2 to 4 percent at the high
end, who are specialists in persistent violence.

The low figure is around the
same proportion as competent killers on the official side of the law: military
snipers, or ace pilots. The high figure is somewhere around the level
for violent police.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 45857
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Mon Jul 17, 2017 4:20 am

For carousers, we have seen in chapter 7 that at most 10.3 percent of
binge drinkers are involved in a simple assault during the year, and 3.3
374 • Chapter 10
percent in a serious assault.

It may well be that the best party fighters are
light drinkers or abstainers, but ethnographies suggest that these fighters
are an even rarer group of specialists.

Among athletes, the widest participation
in fighting is among baseball players, since the entire team is obligated
by custom to come out on the field during a confrontation;

but few
take an active part in actual fighting; judging from suspensions and fines
for fighting, the serious fighters are rarely more than two or three of a
twenty-five-man team plus the ten-man coaching staff (i.e., 10 percent
maximum).

In American football, a maximum of 5 to 10 percent of players
from a forty-five-man squad might fight during a game.

In basketball
the proportion is lower, in hockey higher, although the latter sport explicitly
has one or two "enforcers" on the squad, or about 6 to 12 percent of
the team.

A soccer team similarly may have one enforcer among the defensive
players (9 percent of the players on the field).
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 45857
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Mon Jul 17, 2017 4:31 am

Alpert and Dunham (2004) provide
data from use-of-force reports that show the sequence of moves made by
police and suspects in response to each other. As an encounter begins,
police expect to receive deference for their mere presence and verbal commands.

If suspects resist these early moves verbally, by hostile stares or
expressions, or more seriously by attempts to evade searches and handcuffing
or by running away, police counter-escalate through their own
increasingly aggressive tactics.

They raise their voices; grab, push, shove,
and twist arms; at a higher level they subdue the suspect with choke holds,
fists, and kicks.

Suspects can escalate too, with increasingly activeness and
aggressiveness, up to the level where they brandish guns or other weapons,
or attempt to run the officer over with a car.

Police counter-escalate
still further, with clubs, tasers, stun guns, and finally with deadly force.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 45857
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Mon Jul 17, 2017 12:03 pm

The inner culture of the police comes from the centrality of confrontations
in their work.

Police (at least in the big-city police forces heavily
studied by sociologists) do not like to associate with outsiders in their
leisure time, and are suspicious of them as well as of their own departmental
superiors (Wcstley 1970; Skolnick 1966).

We can interpret this to
mean that officers are used to dominating everyone they encounter, and
hence they avoid off-duty situations where this is not possible.

This ongoing
self-segregation of the police from those whom they patrol keeps up
a degree of polarization and cultural isolation.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 45857
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Mon Jul 17, 2017 3:08 pm

IN THE ZONE VERSUS THE GLAZE OF COMBAT: MICRO-SITUATIONAL
TECHNIQUES OF INTERACTIONAL DOMINANCE
The second-by-second phenomenology of being in a violent confrontation
is a distortion of normal consciousness.

For some antagonists, the distortions
of their stream of consciousness are favorable, enabling them to
dominate; for other persons, the distortions are disabling.

Common distortions
are tunnel vision and time-slowing.

One becomes hyper-concentrated,
focusing intensely on the point of danger, defocusing everything
else as irrelevant.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 45857
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Mon Jul 17, 2017 3:19 pm

One of a pair of cops describes a barricaded hostage-taker coming out
from cover:

When he started toward us, it was almost like it was in slow motion,
and everything went into a tight focus. . . . When he made his move,
my whole body tensed up.

I don't remember having any feeling from
my chest down. Everything was focused forward to watch and react to
my target. Talk about an adrenaline rush!

Everything tightened up, and
all my senses were directed forward at the man running at us with a
gun. My vision was focused on his torso and the gun.

I couldn't tell
you what his left hand was doing. I have no idea. I was watching the
gun.

The gun was coming down in front of his chest area, and that's
when I did my first shots.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 45857
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Mon Jul 17, 2017 3:20 pm

I didn't hear a thing, not one thing. Alan [his partner] fired one round
when I shot my first pair, but I didn't hear him shoot. He shot two more
rounds when I fired the second time, but I didn't hear any of those
rounds, either.

We stopped shooting when he [the suspect] hit the floor
and slid into me. Then I was on my feet standing over the guy. I don't
even remember pushing myself up.

All I know is the next thing I knew
I was standing on two feet looking down at the guy. I don't know how
I got there, whether I pushed up with my hands, or whether I pulled
my knees up underneath.

I don't know, but once I was up, I was hearing
things again, because I could hear brass [discarded shells] clinking on
the tile floor.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 45857
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Mon Jul 17, 2017 3:21 pm

Time had also returned to normal by then, because it had
slowed down during the shooting. That started as soon as he started
toward us. Even though I knew he was running at us, it looked like he
was moving in slow motion. Damnedest thing I ever saw.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 45857
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

PreviousNext

Return to Van Canna's Self Defense Realities

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

cron