Loyalty

by R. A. Whelan

What is loyalty? And what has it been? Let's look back into the past.

The Oxford English Dictionary says that LOYALTY "implies a faithfulness that is steadfast in the face of any temptation to renounce, desert, or betray." It's roots pass from Latin through Old French and Middle English to maintain the meaning of "unswerving allegiance" (Etymology: Middle French, from Old French leial, leel, from Latin legalis legal, Date: 1531). This was also a requirement of knights following the code of Chivalry whose courtesy and devotion to ideals serves as the source of Western "traditional values".

In Chinese and Japanese calligraphy the kanji for various expressions of loyalty (such as fidelity, faithfulness and honesty) all contain two symbols; one for "heart" (and also "mind" or "spirit") and the other for "central" or "middle". The character for honesty also contains these symbols as well as an additional symbol that suggests "war" or "weapon". In a way this indicates such a person's truth has such power that his/her word is a weapon.

Bushido evolved from the customary ethical code implied in this kanji. His heart and spirit was unswerving from the center. According to this doctrine, a samurai was bound to accept death in battle rather than flee or surrender lest his honorable intentions be questioned. As an ideal of conduct, Bushido emphasized personal honesty, reverence and respect for parents, willingness to sacrifice oneself for family honor, consideration for the feelings of others, indifference to pain, loyalty to one's superiors, and unquestioning obedience to duty in the face of any hardship or danger.

Samurai had the concept of Giri (duty). This was the sense of obligation to those to whom one is indebted. It requires deferential behavior and the eventual repayment of the favor, which in turn calls forth future favors. Relations of social dependence thus continue indefinitely, with their very inequality binding individuals to each other. Rules of hierarchy are tempered by the relationship itself.

How different this seems from contemporary views of loyalty. One can get a sense of this by using "loyalty' as a search term on the Internet. In so doing one finds that the overwhelming number of responses refer to "brand name loyalty". It seems in the twentieth century the virtue of loyalty has been reduced to a marketing problem.

Is this a symptom of our more cynical age? Decisions seem to be made only for the immediate moment. The emphasis placed more on "What's good for me now?" rather than, "What's best for us in the long run?"

Despite lip service, our actions frequently indicate that we are trying to avoid the "unrealistic" or "impractical" and these, in turn, seem to be driven mostly by the threat of discomfort, the potential for some personal penalty or a blow to the ego. Loyalty seems lost in the shuffle; it seems to be prized but rarely practiced.

In the workplace, there are no longer employment situations that offer a "job for life". Instead, everyone seems to focus only on his or her personal bottom line. Companies will maintain employees only as long as they provide the most "bang for the buck". Employees frequently jump from job to job, maximizing pay hikes and credits for training that they will use in their next company.

Intimate relationships are considered valuable in proportion to their "functionality". As a result, they are rapidly diagnosed as 'dysfunctional' and the appropriate fix is termination. Leaving becomes the typical expectation.

It is rare to find someone who sees relationships as having a "spiritual" aspect that provides an opportunity to develop character. From this perspective, remaining connected is seen as the necessary ingredient for personal development. Like life in real families, whose connections can not be obliterated, long-standing relationships tend to make one ultimately confront "all of oneself". This even includes those facets that compose our dark side, which we may not be willing to acknowledge. Maintaining the connection through a difficult time becomes the smelting process that transmutes the self and provides an opportunity to burn off the dross of our negative personal characteristics.

In some instances, an impasse in a relationship may be due to the fact that it is too uncomfortable for the parties to face certain aspects of themselves. Consequently they can avoid the possibility that they have traits in need of change. They can self-righteously leave a relationship, outraged and indignant, and eagerly enter a new one that recycles old patterns until the same impasse occurs, or worse, make an unholy alliance with someone who will let faults remain buried, or even glorify them for some ulterior purpose. Such people may see themselves as butterflies flitting from flower to flower when in fact they maybe more like flies buzzing from garbage can to garbage can.

So what does all of this have to do with Aikido? Aikido is a Budo. It is a "warrior way", and as such should exemplify the principles of loyalty and honor. The practice of Budo has as a primary goal the development of personal character. O Sensei himself said, "The purpose of Aikido is to develop sincere and earnest people." It seems clear that one goal of Aikido practice is to foster a sense of loyalty.

This can be manifested in a variety of ways. It can be loyalty to practice, which means that one makes a commitment to train regularly and arrive on time. It may be loyalty to principles wherein one attempts to understand the meaning of Aikido principles and apply them in daily life. It might be loyalty to the dojo that results in a growing awareness of requirements other than dues that help keep your school or club healthy and well. It might be loyalty to delving deeper and deeper in to Aikido's mystery, rather than becoming complacent with a superficial understanding. Or it might be loyalty to a teacher whereupon one begins to realize that caring for one's teacher is just another way of caring for others and oneself as well.

Perhaps there is even a more natural or "organic" example. Could one say that a plant is loyal to its seed? Is the trunk of a tree loyal to its roots? Are the branches loyal to the trunk? And are the leaves, in turn, loyal to the branches?

We are practicing as parts of the same tree. What we have today is a direct result of those who have gone before. O Sensei was the source and the seed.

The Shihan are the roots. At times they may seem mysterious and obscure as they reach into the depths but they are the constant source of nourishment. They maintain the connection to the origins that may lie buried, concealed in the earth.

The rest of us have become the trunk, the branches and the leaves, each according to our personal level of commitment. The trunk is the holder of the form and the power while the branches extend, in their way, to new places in a bigger world. The leaves may come and go in faster cycles but they provide the necessary energy that allows the whole to survive, and, season after season, to evolve.

All are one in truth. We are interdependent, with each relying on the other. Perhaps we should all reflect upon our "duty" and "loyalty" to the roots of Aikido and to those who have devoted their lives to handing down to us Aikido's knowledge, and the connection to its source.