Recently a documentary was released on Prime Video called The Power of Chi narrated by Morgan Freeman. The documentary heavily featured Yang style tai chi instructor Adam Mizner and featured competitive athletes from several different disciplines getting a taste of tai chi.
Watching the documentary was very thought-provoking and somewhat concerning. While I understand the documentary format come with its own foibles and applaud generating interesting in tai chi, there were several incidents which may have lost some nuance in the documentary presentation. So, in no particular order, I want to address some of the discussions of chi in general and tai chi in particular, in order to present my understanding of both and ways in which they conflict or complement discourses in the documentary.
Chi, Tai Chi, and Romanization
Chinese dialects are notoriously difficult to translate to English. Adding to the difficulty is that Chinese characters capture a tonal language and are difficult to transliterate into the alphabet more commonly used by English speakers today.
When the average person sees chi and tai chi they may quite understandably assume that the chi that is part of tai chi is the the same chi that we understand as “life force” or “energy”. However, this is because there are two systems of Romanization in used. The Wade-Giles system obscures some of the differences in pronunciation that are made clearer in the Pinyin system. Using Pinyin chi in the sense of “life force” or energy” becomes qi and, likewise chi in the the context of tai chi becomes ji. Thus, tai chi or taiji translates to something like “Supreme Ultimate” as tai means something like “great or supreme” and ji translates to something like “pole” or “extremity”. For several reasons, this is usually understood to be capturing the relationship between yin and yang with the practice of taijiquan being to embody the dynamic relationship between those two principles.
Do not get me wrong: qi remains an essential part of taijiquan. Qi cultivation and applying qi in combat is definitely part of the taijiquan curriculum-but it remains worth getting clear on the fact that qi is not the same as ji, especially because “tai chi” remains the far more common romanization for the Western audience.
Blurred Boundaries: Chi, Ki, Prana, The Force
There are several times in the documentary where it is claimed that chi is similar to the Force in the Star Wars and equivalent to the concepts of ki and prana. Theologian Grace Ji-Sun Kim makes a similar claim, based on linguistic and descriptive characteristics for the relationship between chi, ruach, and pneuma. I want to push back on these slightly.
Regarding The Force in Star Wars the first thing to note is that while the Force certainly has elements of inspiration from several world religions, it is ultimately its own thing with no direct parallel. George Lucas’ stated goal was to speak to certain commonalities among the world religions and philosophies in order to generate a very basic spirituality. It is also, clearly, a handy plot device becoming an in-built deus ex machina when necessary.
Regarding the similarities between qi/chi, ki, prana, ruach, and pneuma there are two main things to be aware of. First, it is always a good idea to exercise a healthy dose of skepticism when claiming an equivalency across cultural and religious contexts. There are often ideas that have some similarities but also have differences, and emphasizing either is fraught with risk. The case is slightly stronger for the similarities between qi/chi, ki, and prana given the rich history of interaction and exchange between the peoples in lands now known as China, Japan, Korea, and India, but even still caution is warranted. In the case of the similarities between ruach and pneuma which are the Hebrew and Greek terms which are translated as “Spirit of God,” “Holy Spirit,” or simply “Spirit,” there are overlaps in etymological and descriptive associations with qi/chi: associations with breath and wind, a life-giving, animating quality, even an association with a divine origin. However, one key difference is that the Hebrew and Greek concepts of Spirit in the Judeo-Christian traditions associate both agency and will with the Spirit itself that comes from it being a manifestation of Deity. Qi/chi lacks that aspect, with something like the Tao/Dao being a more direct parallel to the “will” aspect of Deity.
Applying Chi: Taijiquan in Praxis
The final piece I feel was slightly obscured in the documentary was how chi/qi works in application. There are three main aspects I want to address on this front: the role of the mind/intent, the internal/external paradigm, and specific martial applications.
Regarding the role of the mind/intent in applying chi/qi, there is no denying that there is a role. A common saying is: the qi/chi follows the mind/intent/will. That said, an overemphasis on the mind/intent is a common pitfall, especially for Western practitioners enculturated in NeoPlatonic dualism between mind and body. It is key to remember that while Chinese philosophy and cosmology recognizes an element of consciousness, and thus an “observer” perspective within the mind, the mind and body are also intrinsically connected and inseparable. As such, claims to “no-touch” practices are frowned upon in many traditional taijiquan circles. I want to be clear here: I didn’t seen any overtly “no-touch” practices in the documentary, and describing the role of the mind/intent in directing and applying chi/qi is admittedly a difficult task. However, I was concerned at some claims/demonstrations around transmitting chi/qi through a third party to affect an opponent and of using only chi/qi and minimizing the body’s role in applications. Such claims and demonstrations often rely, wittingly or unwittingly, upon unrealistically compliant participants and can be dangerous to perpetuate for use in more practical combat situations against uncompliant participants or opponents. The YouTube channel McDojo Life is excellent at cataloguing numerous such instances and the mechanisms involved.
Regarding the internal and external paradigm, there were several instances where chi/qi was referred to as internal power, substantially different from other mechanisms of force and power generation. This is wading into tricky waters but it is worth exercising a degree of humility and caution in trying to differentiate between internal and external martial arts styles. Firstly, there is an historical geopolitical context often unacknowledged. To distill that context, perhaps overly simplistically, there have been periods in Chinese history where foreign influences have been more fiercely resisted than others. During one such period, a distinction was drawn between taijiquan and Shaolin gongfu that served as the basis for the internal/external divide. Under this system, taijiquan, xingyiquan, and baguazhang which were all more closely linked with the Chinese-originating Taoism/Daoism and Confucianism were classified as internal styles whereas kung fu, especially Shaolin kung fu which had additional links to Buddhism were classified as external. Yet practitioners of kung fu and even certain karate lineages equally say that qi/chi or ki are important parts of their martial arts styles. Similarly, in his excellent book Martial Theory, Steve Pearlman emphasizes that the mechanisms that many internal martial art stylists claim are unique to the internal martial arts are present to varying degrees in styles categorized as external. My personal approach at present is to view any distinctions betwen internal and external styles as matters of emphasis or degree rather than of any fundamental difference in mechanism. In any case, it is worth being aware of some of the complications in differentiating between internal and external martial arts when considering concepts and discourse around internal power.
Regarding specific martial applications, there were some demonstrations in the documentary that were particularly concerning. In general, the emphasis on minimizing body mechanics has the possibility to be misleading. Through the practice of drills like push-hands (tuishou) taijiquan practitioners do hone both awareness of incoming lines of force and the ability to negate and/or redirect that force to a high degree. The mind/intent does play a role in this, but the role of the body is not negligible. Viewing the various pushing contests in the documentary, it did appear to me that there were several microadjustments of the body in order to dissipate and/or redirect incoming force. The concern I have is that those microadjusments are not as overtly acknowledged given the focus on exploring chi/qi. There were some instances were the body mechanics were more overtly discussed but they were relatively easy to miss.
The instances where chi/qi was channeled through a third person to push or affect a desired target were especially concerning. Such demonstrations are notorious for requiring compliant targets. While I won’t deny the possibility ever existing, I find it much harder to credit if the third party has not trained sufficiently to allow a state of relaxation necessary for any incoming force to pass through their own body smoothly. The idea of using a third party as an intermediary who is not sufficiently trained, which appeared to be the case in the instances in the documentary, strikes me as having an unacceptably high-risk of injury to the intermediary via the force being emitted into their body.
Takeaways
I do think the documentary has the potential to increase discourse around the potential of tai chi and I am hopeful that any oversights or failings in the documentary were due primarily to the limitations of the documentary format and the linguistic and cultural difficulties inherent in discussing many tai chi-related concepts. I would not be surprised if there were more footage and discussions that did not make it to film that would have added more nuance.
That all said, we are left with version of the film we got and there is potential for a consequent rise in more problematic understandings of chi/qi to be perpetuated, and which have already plagued taijiquan and other internal martial arts circles for far too long. Taijiquan is a deeply rewarding practice that can result in high-level martial arts skills. As a martial art, it is advantageous for many as it uses awareness, sensitivity, and strategic yielding to overcome strength and speed. It is indeed a martial art that can one can practice regardless of gender or several other physical characteristics. There are numerous associated health benefits and the qi cultivation aspect adds a spiritual element that has its own benefits and rewards.
It is, however, important to remember that taijiquan is not plot armour for the real-world. It is adamantly not the fastest way to develop high-level martial arts skills, or even just workable self-defence applications. Its optimal range is quite close to the opponent which means that squaring up and trading blows as seen in Western boxing or taekwondo is not advised, nor does it train any floor work such as that seen in Western wrestling or Brazilian jiu-jitsu. Taijiquan practitioners do experience injures, get old, and die just as any human being does. Indeed, adjustments in how high a stance one takes and the exact curriculum one regular practices are expected to adjust with age, stage of life, and effects of injuries.
I will always endorse practicing taijquan. The art undoubtedly increases physical literacy and hones several skills which can minimize or mitigate microaggressions and help to avoid physical conflict from even arising. Applying taiji principles to other movement practices and even everyday life also holds much potential for avoiding/mitigating injury and resolving conflict. So in the end, I do encourage cultivating qi/chi and giving taijiquan a try-AND I encourage doing so with a curious mind that asks questions and calls out ridiculous claims. In the final analysis, taijiquan must face pressure-testing to the same extent as other martial arts rather than pleading special exceptions.
The Dreamers' Corner 