If There's No Other Instructors, What then!?!?

[MatsuShinshii]

We actually don't use the term CI. Everyone is just called Shinshii.

Titles as a whole have been driven more from the west than on Okinawa. If you train on Okinawa you'll find out quickly that the majority (but not all) just go by Sensei or Shinshii. You will find the occasional Shihan or Hanshi but most just go by teacher.

But pertaining to the original post I would have to agree with Bob in terms of having instructors under you to be referred to as CI. If you're the only one then you are an instructor whether you own the school or not. I would think it would follow the same guidelines of Shihan. Typically, although some might not follow this, the title is given to those that have taught and produced other instructors. I would think that CI would follow these guidelines. But I guess if you're just one indian you could be the chief. I'm glad we don't use these terms. Less confusion.

Just my 2 cents.

[sensei8]

We actually don't use the term CI. Everyone is just called Shinshii.

Titles as a whole have been driven more from the west than on Okinawa. If you train on Okinawa you'll find out quickly that the majority (but not all) just go by Sensei or Shinshii. You will find the occasional Shihan or Hanshi but most just go by teacher.

But pertaining to the original post I would have to agree with Bob in terms of having instructors under you to be referred to as CI. If you're the only one then you are an instructor whether you own the school or not. I would think it would follow the same guidelines of Shihan. Typically, although some might not follow this, the title is given to those that have taught and produced other instructors. I would think that CI would follow these guidelines. But I guess if you're just one indian you could be the chief. I'm glad we don't use these terms. Less confusion.

Just my 2 cents.

Again, I believe that many use who are the sole instructor of said MA school, use the name/initials to become important; to fill a void of some type. I didn't coin the phrase; Saitou Sensei did, as his right being the Soke of Shindokan Saitou-ryu.

Under some definition, I suppose I do fit into the CI category, some how and some way.

[Chunmonchek]

In my dojo, everyone is addressed by their first name. Everyone knows who their seniors and juniors are, and act accordingly. That said, every once in a while members from one of our branch dojos slips up and calls me Sensei. I address my teacher (the head of our organization) by his first name, and always have.

My take on this is that no title will make anyone truly respect me, my art or my instruction...and if I earn such respect from someone, the titles are not necessary.

As much of the traditions/practices are based on Asian culture, the "traditional" protocols are greatly influenced by Confucianism. See this for an overview https://pascal.iseg.utl.pt/~cesa/Three%20Confucian%20Values.pdf

It's been my experience that dojos training Japanese martial arts/budo/koryu arts are more strict in their protocol, and dojos/kwoon training Okinawan or Chinese martial arts are seemingly more laid back.

The Dojos that I trained at in Okinawa were strict in their training, but somewhat laid back in their protocol. That said, they were very aware of those who did and those who did not, observe protocol.

[MatsuShinshii]

We actually don't use the term CI. Everyone is just called Shinshii.

Titles as a whole have been driven more from the west than on Okinawa. If you train on Okinawa you'll find out quickly that the majority (but not all) just go by Sensei or Shinshii. You will find the occasional Shihan or Hanshi but most just go by teacher.

But pertaining to the original post I would have to agree with Bob in terms of having instructors under you to be referred to as CI. If you're the only one then you are an instructor whether you own the school or not. I would think it would follow the same guidelines of Shihan. Typically, although some might not follow this, the title is given to those that have taught and produced other instructors. I would think that CI would follow these guidelines. But I guess if you're just one indian you could be the chief. I'm glad we don't use these terms. Less confusion.

Just my 2 cents.

Again, I believe that many use who are the sole instructor of said MA school, use the name/initials to become important; to fill a void of some type. I didn't coin the phrase; Saitou Sensei did, as his right being the Soke of Shindokan Saitou-ryu.

Under some definition, I suppose I do fit into the CI category, some how and some way.

Please don't misunderstand... I have no issue with the term nor those that use it.

My personal opinion, after studying in a few arts with some using different titles, is it's much easier to have every one call you teacher or as you said by your first name than inject many titles. However if this is what the man responsible for the art/organization instituted, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. Years back someone in our organization petitioned the board to include Shihan (which is purely a Japanese title) as a title to differentiate Senior instructors from their students/instructors. They did enact this but very, very few of us ever used the title nor did our students ever call us by that title. Its always just been Shinshii.

I'm of the mindset that first names would, as you say, be even easier. Unfortunately traditions are hard to change after decades, centuries of use.

I guess I look at this the same way I do belt colors. No matter the color, if you are good then it will show. Students and even other instructors will know what grade (or close to it) you are because it will show through your abilities, skill and knowledge. Belts and titles are irrelevant compared to these. No one would enter my Shinshii's Dojo as assume that he was a student or that any one of his instructors were in charge.

But to each their own. As long as your learning to defend yourself it matters little what the title is that your instructor holds. As you always say, proof is on the floor, and a title does not change that.

I do however feel that those that are not what they purport to be use these titles as a way to hide behind and elevate their ego's without having to prove what they claim to their students. If the title is legitimate and it's your arts tradition to use it as a sign of respect for your accomplishments and contributions then there is nothing wrong with these titles.

Personally the only title I have ever had an issue with is "Master" for reasons I have outlined in other posts.

[tallgeese]

We actually don't use the term CI. Everyone is just called Shinshii.

Titles as a whole have been driven more from the west than on Okinawa. If you train on Okinawa you'll find out quickly that the majority (but not all) just go by Sensei or Shinshii. You will find the occasional Shihan or Hanshi but most just go by teacher.

But pertaining to the original post I would have to agree with Bob in terms of having instructors under you to be referred to as CI. If you're the only one then you are an instructor whether you own the school or not. I would think it would follow the same guidelines of Shihan. Typically, although some might not follow this, the title is given to those that have taught and produced other instructors. I would think that CI would follow these guidelines. But I guess if you're just one indian you could be the chief. I'm glad we don't use these terms. Less confusion.

Just my 2 cents.

Again, I believe that many use who are the sole instructor of said MA school, use the name/initials to become important; to fill a void of some type. I didn't coin the phrase; Saitou Sensei did, as his right being the Soke of Shindokan Saitou-ryu.

Under some definition, I suppose I do fit into the CI category, some how and some way.

Please don't misunderstand... I have no issue with the term nor those that use it.

My personal opinion, after studying in a few arts with some using different titles, is it's much easier to have every one call you teacher or as you said by your first name than inject many titles. However if this is what the man responsible for the art/organization instituted, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. Years back someone in our organization petitioned the board to include Shihan (which is purely a Japanese title) as a title to differentiate Senior instructors from their students/instructors. They did enact this but very, very few of us ever used the title nor did our students ever call us by that title. Its always just been Shinshii.

I'm of the mindset that first names would, as you say, be even easier. Unfortunately traditions are hard to change after decades, centuries of use.

I guess I look at this the same way I do belt colors. No matter the color, if you are good then it will show. Students and even other instructors will know what grade (or close to it) you are because it will show through your abilities, skill and knowledge. Belts and titles are irrelevant compared to these. No one would enter my Shinshii's Dojo as assume that he was a student or that any one of his instructors were in charge.

But to each their own. As long as your learning to defend yourself it matters little what the title is that your instructor holds. As you always say, proof is on the floor, and a title does not change that.

I do however feel that those that are not what they purport to be use these titles as a way to hide behind and elevate their ego's without having to prove what they claim to their students. If the title is legitimate and it's your arts tradition to use it as a sign of respect for your accomplishments and contributions then there is nothing wrong with these titles.

Personally the only title I have ever had an issue with is "Master" for reasons I have outlined in other posts.

Yeah, we are pretty laid back. Most everyone is on a first name basis. There's the occasional "coach" used by newer people, but that's as formal as it gets. I too agree that in most adult programs a first name basis is the way to go.