Martial Tai Chi

Martial Tai Chi Association

De-mystifying the Mysterious

"100% Qi-Free? How can that be?!"

First let me apologise to all our readers for writing yet another qi related article. Why is this necessary? Because nowhere is the concept of qi more slavishly and vehemently clung to than in the world of Tai Chi, and in particular, the world of perhaps over-zealously Sinophile Western Tai Chi practitioners.

This year I have had many arguments with people on various forums and blogs over the issue of qi, when they have taken exception to articles on this site. Indeed, people who had previously said very positive things about our work have actually changed their tune upon discovering our stance on "qi." Frequently their arguments have been erratic, hysterical, and even down-right abusive. Chinese people may be free to accept or reject the concept of qi as they see fit (as Yiquan practitioners do), but a Westerner who does the same will always be accused of a lack of understanding, or perhaps even be criticised for perceived ethnocentricity. In the interests of getting to the truth, however, such accusations must be endured.

Catch-all Term

I find the idea of the usefulness of such a catch-all term as "qi" quite ridiculous. The fact that qi cannot be translated into a single Western term is not a virtue, but a phenomenon ripe for unclear (as well as shoddy, erroneous or even exploitative) teaching.

Sometimes the term "qi" is used in reference to one's breathing. Sometimes it refers to one's centre of gravity (or an opponent's centre of gravity). Sometimes it refers to grounded (or braced) whole-body strength. Sometimes it refers to sequential muscle engagement. Sometimes it refers to an unbroken flow of momentum. Using the word "qi" in all of these different places makes it harder for us to isolate specific problems and rectify them. Put simply, it makes Tai Chi much harder than is necessary to teach or study in a clear, systematic and coherent way. These different phenomena are not all the same thing, unless you want to broaden everything out to simply "factors relevant to movement." To do so would not be useful, so instead we can talk of breath, centre of gravity, braced strength, sequential muscle engagement and momentum as separate components. Yes, we understand that these components must all work together, but that does not erase their distinct identities. A mechanic must understand the workings of the different parts of an engine to make the engine work as a whole.

Qi or Jin? Don't ask Questions!

All too often, people use the term "qi" in place of another Chinese term "jin" which could be translated as "optimal power" or "skillful use of force." Often teachers rely on the term "qi" for aspects of movement they cannot or do not wish to explain. In any language, this is just bad teaching practice. It is not the case that their methods are inexplicable - rather, by adhering to the vague methodology of qi, they have deprived themselves of deeper and more detailed physical understanding. Such teachers could work harder to understand how their body is working when executing given movements, including subtle adjustments that might be required when changing direction or when adapting to changing circumstances.

How many words for "Snow"?

Although there is a degree of urban mythology around how many Innuit words there are for snow, they do have multiple terms for various states of compacted snow and ice. They need this level of precision because they build with the stuff and have to be able to communicate with each other in precise concepts when doing so. Different states of ice have different qualities and different uses as a building material. How many people would argue that the Innuit should NOT break down the broader concept of ice into more precise terms? No one. Insisting that they only ever use a catch-all term such as "ice", where greater clarity was possible, would only be detrimental to the task of building with it.

Now, obviously, a qi-believer could counter that the different states of ice are all "ice" at the end of the day and they would, of course, be right. I'm sure they could, by extension, argue that everything ascribed to qi is all qi, inasmuch as qi is a traditional term for all those seemingly disconnected phenomena and again they might be right. However, if we were wishing to build with snow and ice, I'm sure we would only benefit from the precision of Innuit terminology. Similarly, Chinese medicine and sports science are now benefitting from Western anatomical concepts and many Chinese people are quite happy to let the concept of qi slip away into the past as a remnant of pseudoscience.

Crystal Clear

Now, has anyone ever offered an explanation for a (legitimate) qi-ascribed phenomenon that cannot be explained in more precise or clear terms? No.

I therefore rest my case. The concept of qi may be traditional to Chinese martial arts, but frankly, we can do better. It is time to ditch the term, not least because it is so open to abuse and is so often used to promote superstitious and harmful spiritual beliefs. Nothing can be achieved using the methodology of qi that cannot be achieved as well or better without it. This is why the MTA remains solidly 100% Qi-Free.

Further reading on "Qi"
A practical guide to qi
The trouble with qi
What are "qi sensations?"