Jujutsu In Daily Life

"Have you ever used your martial arts in self-defense?" the student asked.

"Only once," replied the master, "And only to control a distraught and hysterical person, not to fight."

But the master was troubled by the student's question. "Have I trained for years to use my art only in the rare case of self-defense?" The master considered his art and his training. He remembered the teachings of his own master, who had taught him the Chinese rule of the hammer: "If the only tool you have is a hammer, soon all your problems begin to look like nails," his master had said. It was true, he thought. I have mastered the art of fighting, but not of winning; of truly defeating an opponent by making him my friend. I have learned to win conflict, not to prevent it or resolve it to the satisfaction of all. I have learned nothing!

The master put on again the white belt he had worn as a beginner. He examined his art and began to use the principles of overcoming an opponent physically to the conflicts in his daily life. He began to anticipate an "attack" by noting the pattern of events that led to make men angry. He learned that when he disrupted the pattern of events that led to make men angry. He learned that when he disrupted the pattern early and with understanding and principle, the anger never materialized, and the "attack" never occurred. He began to let people express their anger until they` were spent; he simply listened and let go of his defensiveness. Then he would again look for the cause of his assailant's anger and deal with it through understanding and principle. In time, he became a wise master whose council was sought often.

"Have you ever had to use your martial arts?", the student asked.

"Yes, often" said the master. "And since I have begun to use it, I have not had to fight."

Jujutsu, as do all martial arts, evolved as a way to resolve conflict. Jujutsu teaches us many principles for dealing with physical conflict: timing, awareness of openings, not resisting the strength of an opponent; using the opponent's strength to our advantage, not limiting ourselves to using only one of two parts of our bodies to fight with, never giving up the initiative even in retreat, and so on. These principles can also be used in resolving other types of conflict, especially those we encounter every day, such as negotiating for a raise, deciding which movie the family will see, chosing which set of in-laws to visit during vacation, convincing mom and dad to loan us the car keys, and so on. What Getting to Yes does is to put these principles into a well-packaged guide to negotiation. As the authors put it:

This book began with the question, "What is the best way for people to deal with their differences?"

The usual pattern of negotiation is called positional bargaining. In this pattern, each side in a conflict takes a position, argues for it, and makes concessions to reach a compromise. But when you bargain over positions, you tend to lock yourself into those positions. The more you clarify your position and defend it against attack, the more committed you become to it. the more you try to convince the other side of the impossibility of changing your opening position, the more difficult it becomes to do so. Your ego becomes identified with your position. You now have a new interest in "saving face" ---- in reconciling future action with past positions ---- making it less and less likely that any agreement will wisely reconcile the parties, original interest.

Bargaining over positions creates incentives that stall settlement. In positional bargaining, you try to improve to chance that any settlement reached is favorable to you by starting with an extreme position, by stubbornly holding to it, by deceiving the other party as to your true views, and by making small concessions only as necessary to keep the negotiation going. The same is true for the other side.

Positional bargaining also becomes a contest of will. Each negotiator asserts what he will and won't do. The task of jointly devising an acceptable solution tends to become a battle. Each side tries through sheer will power to force the other to change its position. I'm not going to give in. If you want to go to the movies with me, it's "The Maltese Falcon" or nothing. Anger and resentment often result as one side sees itself bending to the ridged will of the other while its own legitimate concerns go unaddressed.

About the only variations you can do with positional bargaining is to be hard or soft about it. The boxed material illustrates the differences between hard and soft positional bargaining.

1. separate the people from the problem,
2. focus on interests, not on positions,
3. generate a variety of possibilities before deciding what to do, and
4. insist that the decision be based on some objective standard.

Separate the People from the Problem

Focus on Interests, Not Positions

Invent Options for Mutual Gain

Decide on the Basis of Objective Criteria

Two children are arguing over the division of a piece of cake; neither trusts the other to cut the cake evenly. Their problem is solved when their mother suggests that one should cut the cake and the other should chose between the two pieces.

The book closes with chapters titled "What if they are more powerful?", "What if they won't play?", and "What if they use dirty tricks?" All in all, a book well worth the money.

To The Kiai Echo Articles Page.

To AJJF Home Page.