Specificity of Violence

Self-defense and personal safety is specific to the individual; something which can easily be forgotten, when teaching different groups. A good example of this is the difference in the nature and types of assaults experienced by men and women e.g. men are most likely to be subjected to assaults which predominately involve striking, whilst women are much more likely to experience attacks, where their movement is controlled and restricted, etc. This is not to say that women shouldn’t learn how to block and protect themselves from strikes and punches, but rather that if we look at the way women are generally assaulted, it largely differs to the ways in which men are attacked i.e. gender is an important factor in determining the violence an individual is likely to face.

Age is also an important factor – in school bullying situations, a bullied child is more likely to have to deal with multiple assailants, than a middle aged man or woman, etc. Violence is specific to the profile of the victim who is targeted. This is important to understand, because when we read magazine articles and similar, that tell us, that these are the five most important self-defense techniques we should know, we should question whether they actually apply to us. Are the techniques/defenses listed applicable to the types of assault we are likely to face, given our particular lifestyle?

No writer or author (and I include myself in this), can say that what we present, represents your profile 100% - we don’t know. Crime statistics aren’t categorized in a way that would allow us to make even the most general statements about which attacks people are most likely to face; we rely on our own experiences, and those who we work with – and we have to acknowledge, like our own experiences, that theirs are limited too.

Geography has a part to play, when we start to look at what the most relevant types of attack, which we need to learn to defend against. Ice pick style knife attacks are common in Israel at the moment, but don’t appear as prevalently in the US or the UK. When I taught in the UK, I was often asked about how to defend against knife attacks from behind e.g. someone stabbing a knife into your buttocks, when standing behind you, etc. I have never been asked this since I started teaching in the US. I’m sure these types of attack have and do happen here, but from people’s lack of concern about it, it doesn’t seem that they are the most common. I would also hazard a guess that such attacks are aimed more at men in their early 20’s, rather than middle aged people living in the suburbs.

Even within the US, different cities, experience different types of violence. Gun violence in Boston, where I live and teach, is not nearly as common as that in a city such as Chicago. What may be a likely type of attack/assault in Chicago, may not be as relevant to somebody living in Boston. That doesn’t mean that it isn’t important for somebody living in a city with low gun violence, to learn how to defend themselves against firearms; such assaults may be relatively low frequency, but they carry and contain high consequences. However, if I was teaching in Chicago, I would probably cover assaults with firearms, on a much more regular basis, than I do at the moment, simply because my students would be much more likely to have to deal with them, and it is important as a reality based self-defense instructor to teach that which is relevant.

This is one of the issues with teaching what is ostensibly a military system, to civilians, and the double danger of teaching Krav Maga which is taught to special forces, elite units, etc. A military solution may be suitable for a civilian situation, but it is not by default; the instructor teaching the technique/solution may need to translate what they are teaching for it to be applicable. I remember that one of the first techniques I was ever taught in a civilian class, was how to defend a rear strangle – something that from my own personal experience working in bar and club security, I have rarely seen; normally involving a third party trying to pull somebody away, etc. The technique is relevant for civilians to learn, but the context of the attack is largely different to that faced in the military, where it is taught as a defense against sentries being taken out. Violence is context specific, and needs to be taught this way if it is to be relevant; what may be a likely attack to one audience, might be less likely to another.

Violence, also changes over time, meaning that what may indeed have been a likely attack at one point, becomes less likely or irrelevant at a later date. A good example of this can be seen in the way that muggers and robbers have “updated” some of the ways in which they carry out their crimes. I remember having to change some of my knife threat defenses, where the knife is pointed against the stomach, when I heard about a spate of muggings in the area where one of my schools was located, where the muggers were actually breaking the flesh, and holding the knife pushed into their victim’s stomach – not deeply, but enough that if you pushed the knife to the side, you would end up creating a serious wound. In a matter of weeks, what I had been teaching became not only irrelevant but extremely dangerous. Certain scenarios that may have been common at one point, may change over time, and even become less likely than others.

The real danger of articles and the like, which suggest that there is a common set of likely assaults that everybody, regardless of age, gender and geography faces, is that it makes people lazy in making their own personal risk assessments, and identifying the specific vulnerabilities that their lifestyle contains – and we all have vulnerabilities that need to be addressed. It can also make self-defense training seem irrelevant to certain sections of the population, if they can’t imagine or see themselves being attacked in any of the scenarios listed. If one takes for granted that there really are 5 self-defense techniques that everybody should know, that deal with the most likely attacks you’ll face, and none of them relate to you and your lifestyle, then one might conclude there isn’t much point investing time in learning how to defend yourself, as there really isn’t any need. Unfortunately, you may be failing to learn how to defend yourself against the types of assault you are more likely to face.

I understand the desire of some instructors to try and simplify self-defense for people, to present self-defense in bite sized chunks, that are easy for people to digest, etc. But presenting the idea that every population and demographic is subjected to the same attacks (and hence requires the same defenses), is naive and simplistic, and not relatable to real world violence. Violence is specific to the individual and their situation, and the individual threats and vulnerabilities present in their lifestyle determine what type of situations they are likely to face, and what type of solutions they require. To say that myself and an 18-year old female college student are likely to face the same types of threats, dangers, and attacks, is patently wrong, and to train us in exactly the same way would be to do at least one of us (probably both) a great disservice.