Not only the origins of the respective styles, but the veracity of this
classification system itself have been questioned. The presence of softness,
circularity, and even postures similar to those of taiji and the other “inter-
nal” soft styles has been noted for Shaolin styles. For example, the popular
Southern Shaolin art of yongchun (wing chun) embodies relaxation, yield-
ing, and clinging energy in its chi shou(chi sao; sticking hands) techniques,
along with linear punches. By the same token, Chen-style taiji utilizes
forceful stamping and explosive movement as well as rhythmic, whole-
body motion. Xingyi is linear and forceful, its internal classification
notwithstanding.
In this vein, Stanley Henning has presented compelling historical ar-
guments that the distinction between internal and external is spurious.
Tracing the first reference to an Internal School (Wudang Boxing) as dis-
tinct from an External School (Shaolin Boxing) to the Qing dynasty (1644–
1912) and to historian and Ming supporter Huang Zongxi (1610–1695),
Henning puts forth the hypothesis that the split developed as a misinter-
pretation of work that was intended as an anti-Manchu parable alluding to
the fall of the Ming to the Manchu Qin dynasty. He goes on to note that
the principles of both soft/internal and hard/external are apparent in Chi-
nese fighting arts in general, regardless of the labels imposed under the soft-
hard dichotomy. Both the political motivations of the initial division of the
arts during the Qing dynasty and the artificiality of an internal-external
split are transmitted orally within Chinese Boxing, although a variety of
hypotheses coexist.
Nevertheless, the popular opinion holds that there is a meaningful dis-
tinction between the internal and external schools. Robert Smith, Chinese
martial arts master and author of the first books in English on the arts of
baguazhang, taijiquan, and xingyiquan, in a body of work spanning three
decades, steadfastly maintains profound differences between the two cate-
gories on all levels. At least through the end of the twentieth century, the
internal-external taxonomy prevails.
Thomas A. Green
See alsoBaguazhang (Pa Kua Ch’uan); Boxing, Chinese; Boxing, Chinese
Shaolin Styles; Ki/Qi; Taijiquan (Tai Chi Ch’uan); Xingyiquan (Hsing I
Ch’uan)
References
Draeger, Donn F., and Robert W. Smith. 1981. Comprehensive Asian
Fighting Arts.Tokyo: Kodansha International.
Henning, Stanley E. 1997. “Chinese Boxing: The Internal versus the
External in the Light of History and Theory.” Journal of the Asian
Martial Arts6: 10–19.
Reid, Howard, and Michael Croucher. 1983. The Way of the Warrior: The
Paradox of the Martial Arts.London: Eddison Sadd Editions.External vs. Internal Chinese Martial Arts 121