Who gets to judge? The ethics of ippon in kendō

Abstract

This study uses philosophy of science to argue that kendō culture and the structure of kendō society cause unfairness. The mechanism that is identified as being responsible for this is aesthetic imperialism, which refers to the dominance of one group’s values and preferences over those of another. It demonstrates that the determination of a valid strike (yūkō datotsu) and awarding of a point (ippon) require value judgements. It is then argued that the values that inform kendō scoring (like science in a democratic society) should be communal. However, because judges (shinpan) have absolute authority in a kendō match (shiai) and, moreover, only a select elite get to be judges at most competitions (taikai), kendō falls short of this ideal and is guilty of aesthetic imperialism. It is then argued that aesthetic imperialism is not always unethical because judging in sports such as kendō requires expertise, and thus a meritocratic model for the relationship between sports and values is more appropriate than a democratic one. But this does not exculpate kendō from accusations that judging is unfair, because the judgement of who gets to judge is not meritocratic: it is elitist and ageist. One policy implication of this conclusion is the abolition of the age requirement imposed upon the grading system in kendō and many other martial arts.