1.1 – Karate

8Karate sets up the learning of combat situations, but its main purpose is to learn how to live together rather than how to hit each other. For Ferréol in Dugas & Ferréol (2015, p. 27), what must be “put in common” and understood as an “assumed whole” may establish an approach to the notion of cohabitation. Ferréol (2003) perceives that as the awakening of a sensible citizenship.

9That sensible citizenship is perceived as a form of pooling. Can it be defined, as Zanna (2011, p. 291) describes it speaking of combat sports, as an agreed and accepted act of empathy between motivated actors? In that perspective, karateka would embody that “assumed whole,” since they are willing to strike blows according to a code (with a control of impacts for example) while accepting to take some in turn. We defend that approach to cohabitation, specific to the various practices of combat sports. Therefore if, according to Goffman (1973), some individuals cannot play the social role they have to take on any more, the question is: can karate lead them to relive the experience of empathy while in detention, and bring them out of the hazardous situation resulting from distancing themselves from rules and others (Goffman, 1984)? According to Goffman (1973, p. 12, 29), this role played by the individual enables an “indirect expression.”

10It offers to the one who plays it the possibility to grasp the elements of a “setting” and therefore to have interactions within which rules are shared by all. As one gets involved in a collective session of active karate learning under the instruction of a professor, it is already and in itself the creation of a form of cohabitation for each of the participants.

11In comparison, we can observe how the concept of cohabitation is embraced by the Department of Urban Affairs, Youth and Sports in the framework of its policy concerning social cohesion. As noble as it seems, this pledge to teach cohabitation thanks to karate needs to be put to the test. Indeed, karate is a combat sport that can also be qualified as a martial art (Draeger, 1974). This activity also implies the learning of practices of bare hand combat and knife fights. Originally, karate is a self-defense practice (comprising “jutsu,” or techniques), but what the FFKDA offers today through its federation [7] is more of a tool for self-control (the influences of Neo-Confucianism being very significant with the “do,” defined as a path to individual thriving at the service of a collective), according to Draeger (1974), Tokitsu (1979), Didier (1988) and Funakoshi (1993). The imprint of that path or code is present in the sport handbook of any karateka registered with the FFKDA (2015, p. 50), which is a delegate federation of the Department of Urban Affairs, Youth and Sports. That code is introduced in the work of Draeger (1974) and Mitsuo (2003), among others.

12Karate, as other traditional combat disciplines (Western, Japanese, etc.) described by Loudcher & Renaud (2011, p. 61), experiences that mutation, in what they call “educational normalization,” through its sportification. “Civic and social integration” [8], described by the FFKDA, makes karate swing back and forth between the respect of tradition regarding Japanese cultural phenomena and modern sportification, with a stated desire to regulate aggressiveness. Elias & Dunning (1994) describe that sportification as the recreational dimension that has been established in the instruction of sports practices, including karate, creating phenomena of sport and competitive games.

13Today, the practice of karate is institutionally supported and acknowledged by the Department of Urban Affairs, Youth and Sports, with subsidies granted through the National Center for the Development of Sports (CNDS), among others. The CNDS is a public establishment with an administrative vocation created on March 2^nd, 2006 (decree n°20066248). It replaces the former FNDS (National Fund for the Development of Sports) and, with dedicated subsidies, it aims at favoring the access to sports for the greater number of people and at fighting against inequalities in terms of practice access, high level and the organization of sporting events. It also aims at strengthening supervision and professionalization in sports.

14The units dedicated to “Urban Affairs” in the 101 departments’ “Prefectures” and their Social Cohesion services are the local actors dealing with community life. Through their actions and their partnership with the CDOS (Olympic and Sport Departmental Committees), they aim at contributing to cohabitation and reducing inequalities concerning the access to sports. Their action can take the shape of subsidies, including the contribution of the CNDS.

1.2 – Aggressiveness in combat sports

15Nosanchuck (1981) and Lamarre & Nosanchuck (1999) have demonstrated that aggressiveness may decrease over the years of karate practice. Two articles focus on this effect. Nosanchuck (1981, p. 435) asserts that “longer training is associated with lower aggressiveness (…)”. Therefore, in the light of his work, he unveils the fact that karate may be a tool for self-control. As for Lamarre & Nosenchuck (1999, p. 992), they report that “a decline in aggressiveness with a training (…) of karate or taekwondo (…)” occurs.

16The positioning of these researchers is in favor of the practice of martial arts, and karate in particular, as part of a search for self-control and a decrease in aggressiveness. In their work dealing with those issues, Vertonghen & Theeboom (2010, p. 531) introduce an exhaustive collection of conclusions, “overview of selected studies on martial arts and personality traits,” taken from the various studies on martial practices, combat sports and aggressiveness. These studies use methods qualified as either “cross-sectional” or “longitudinal.” The purpose of the latter, which are frequently used in the social sciences (psychology, sociology), is the compilation of data derived from observations, carried out thanks to questionnaires and repeated over long periods of time.

17As for Kanniyan, Georges & Valiyakath (2015), they report that there is no difference between the aggressiveness of sportspersons (who practice volleyball, football, kabaddi and swimming) and non-sportspersons. The interest of sports would rather be found in the possibility of using an improved self-confidence as a tool to fight stress. In the perspective of that neutral positioning, sports would not induce any change in aggressiveness (neither increase nor decrease). Their work method is also based on questionnaires (“16PF questionnaire”) used to collect data.

18Finally, Goldstein (2011) concedes that in sports, aggressive behaviors may be tolerated and that they might appear as equivocal or ambivalent, between what is allowed and what is prohibited. Ross (2014) acknowledges that the authorization of a combat sport by an institution makes it possible to provide some education to rules through sports in educational, social and professional surroundings. But at the same time, it leads to the institutional recognition of an aggressive behavior. That “sport aggressiveness” she mentions is that which consists in provoking, intimidating, bullying, marking, communicating and counter-communicating in a way that is authorized by a rule. In that case, we deal with licit as well as necessary practices used in order to cooperate with partners and to confront opponents.

19Others, such as Malinaukas, Dumciene & Malinauskiene (2014), acknowledge that the practice of sports during adolescence arouses a growth of verbal aggressiveness and anger, especially if that sport involves contact, and even more if it is a combat sport. In this way, and once more through questionnaires, Malinaukas, Dumciene & Malinauskiene (2014) seem to lean towards the hypothesis that sports induce aggressiveness. Once more, we can notice that questionnaires are preferred to direct observation, and that, again, aggressiveness remains undefined and refers to a concept which is too general and remote from sport phenomena. Indeed, that study does not raise any issue about physical aggressiveness or differentiation between sportspersons and non-sports persons.

20Another study carried out by Brewer & Howarth (2012) fully integrates aggressiveness as part of sport practices. In that sense, aggressiveness may be an integral part of sport practices, or at least of some of them, and it may benefit from a form of social recognition, from the mere desire to exchange to the will to establish an intimate relationship, lasting or not, with the sportsman identified as aggressive.

21After this introduction of the various studies about aggressiveness and sport practice, we intend to position ourselves in the framework of the present work, in the light of the material and method we decided to adopt.

22In that perspective, it appears necessary to call upon the classifications concerning the different forms of aggressiveness, as presented by Collard (2004) [9]. He explains that various forms of aggressiveness, considered either licit or illicit, can express themselves in sports. Licit forms of aggressiveness are understood and allowed by the rules, whereas illicit forms are prohibited.

Figure 1

The different types of aggressiveness while practicing sports games

The different types of aggressiveness while practicing sports games

The illicit form of aggressiveness sanctioned by the game code is either oriented towards the completion of the task (instrumental aggressiveness) or non-operating and reserved for the expression of a dissatisfaction (affective aggressiveness): in both cases, it is psychologically relevant (related to frustrations, the stakes of a game, an aggressive behavior a priori, etc.). Licit aggressiveness, explicitly expected in the play contract, is relevant in a motor way: it consists either of gestures supporting motor action which are not sanctioned, or of motor actions in themselves (praxic aggressiveness) through praxemes (defining the tactic relations in opposition situations) and motor counter-communication (defining the technical relations in opposition situations).

23In this work, rather than opting for a study of the processing of behaviors and personality traits carried out through questionnaires, we chose to opt for the direct observation of karate practice in prison. Those observations were carried out in detention and in clubs (control group). We attempted to observe the forms of aggressiveness related to sport practice, that is to say licit behaviors included in the rules of the sport. From that point, we found out two forms of “motor aggressiveness”: i) praxic (a motor activity such as a kick or a punch directed to the other, as well as the whole system of counter-communications and tactic situations (Parlebas, 1999) such as an attacker/defender situation) or ii) kinesic (the “kiai” or provocation cry). The observation, in situ, of karate practice in detention might be of significant resonance if it unveils results contradicting the writings about karate and the control of aggressiveness. Those contradictions may be based on different approaches in methods and the problematic of the indicators used, whether derived from questionnaires or observations.

24According to Bordes, Collard & Dugas (2007), motor behaviors performed by practitioners while practicing sport activities - in a systemic and multifactorial approach - can enable them to reach objectives such as socialization, integration, insertion, and health improvement, among others. By contrast, according to the studies of Goldstein (2011), Malinaukas, Dumciene & Malinauskiene (2014), promoting an activity like karate may not be recommended in the context of detention and its effectiveness depends on the convicts’ ability to produce licit aggressiveness. Without it, karate would not encourage cohabitation.

25Some studies present karate as a tool to control and even lower aggressiveness. We call them into question, as we believe that exploiting a form of sport aggressiveness in a licit way may enable to achieve a related learning, namely that of cohabitation. The demand for aggressive behaviors implied in the inner logic of some sport activities may even enable the assimilation of body techniques likely to be transferred to other situations while creating a phenomenon of cohesion, according to Collard & Oboeuf (2007). Bodin & Debarbieux (2001) complement that approach, since they believe that sports could put in place expected phenomena with regard to the regulation of aggressive urges. That search of a new learning in terms of cohabitation thus falls under what Bourdieu (1979) calls a “habitus.”

26As we already mentioned, the Department of Urban Affairs, Youth and Sports encourages a policy reducing inequalities in the access to sports in order to achieve better cohabitation, with the support of the CNDS, among others.

27Our problematic boils down to the question of the licit use of aggressiveness: does it translate into motor behaviors that are significantly different in prison and in clubs?

28This question leads us to propose three additional questions hypotheses:

• Do motor behaviors while practicing karate in prison show more aggressiveness than in clubs? A preconceived idea might suggest that indeed “convicts are not there by chance.”
• Do the motor behaviors of convicts show, on the contrary, less aggressiveness than in clubs, the convicts fearing sanctions due to their misbehaviors? Those sanctions may, among other things, set them apart from sport activity.
• Finally, might there be no difference concerning the level of aggressiveness demonstrated by convicts and club practitioners because of the coercive impact of the inner logic in karate, which channels and contains motor behaviors and leads them towards harmless approaches?

29We defend the idea according to which karate practice may provide a licit space for the expression of sport aggressiveness, as well as a time to teach the respect of others, thanks to the rules contained in its inner logic. As they impose otherness, cooperation and opposition make empathy necessary, according to Zanna (2011).

30Verdot (2008) supports the first hypothesis and some conclusions of Vertonghen & Theeboom (2010) lean towards the third one. As for the second hypothesis, it is supported by authors such as Gras (2005), Gallant, Sherry & Nicholson (2014), who point out the benefits of sports in prison. According to Gras (2005), sports enable to engage in a therapeutic process, to start working on one’s self-control and on understanding the prison environment. As for Gallant, Sherry & Nicholson (2014, p. 10), they specify that “sport and recreation programs can improve physical and mental health.”

31Merging those different elements constitutes the objective of the present work. Does the practice of karate in prison, if it undertakes a licit use of aggressiveness, create cohabitation in a prison environment? Does it offer help in the perspective of rehabilitation (which the FFKDA and the Department of Justice seem to assert)?

32Tackling that issue amounts to wondering whether, as Zanna (2011) suggests, cohabitation – through a redeveloped and pooled empathy – can also lead to a transfer of learning and interpersonal skills outside prison. Will convicts be able to reinvest that knowledge and play the social role expected from them, as described by Goffman (1973, 1984)?

33From the work of Goffman (1973, 1984), we conceptualize the notion of rehabilitation: after a complete deprivation of freedom, even a “dispossession” of the self, convicts agree to play the role assigned to them, implying the free acceptation of rules, so as not to come back to detention following a repeat offence. Gras (2005, p. 38) adds: “the meaning of the sentence does not aim for the punishment of crime anymore, but rather for the control of the individual and his/her transformation.”

2.1 – The public in detention and the control groups

37The observations were carried out at the Remand Home of Fresnes (in the course of nine practice sessions) and Fleury-Mérogis (for just one demonstration session, observed on November 19^th 2004), as well as in Orly’s Avenir Sportif club as far as the control sample is concerned.

38The observation of aggressiveness in the framework of karate practice in prison was accomplished by comparing three publics:

• Karateka in community associations for the control group. The observations were carried out by two sports instructors [10] trained by one of the authors of this article in the Avenir Sportif club’s karate section. The practitioners had been practicing for between a few weeks and twenty years, and twelve of them had acquired “dans” (grades within the black belt, from 1^st to 5^th). They trained twice to three times a week. A total of 188 observations were carried out for 117 practitioners, all members of the FFKDA.
• Convicts practicing karate. The observations were carried out at the Remand Home of Fresnes (sections 1 to 3 and MAF) by two sports instructors [11], and at the Remand Home of Fleury-Mérogis. The convicts had been practicing karate for between a few weeks and two years, and trained once to three times a week. A total of 66 observations were carried out for 55 male convicts practicing karate, and 11 observations were carried out for 20 female convicts practicing karate.
• Six practitioners from community associations who specially went into prison to train with groups of convicts. Those external practitioners all had a black belt with at least a first dan and trained twice to three times a week on average.

39One of the authors, who is at the head of a sport community association in the Ile-de-France region and of the Val de Marne League of Karate and Associated Disciplines, could not, for regulatory reasons, have direct access to the sessions given in prison and in club. He therefore delegated the task of carrying out these observations to two employed instructors working in each one of the structures, after having trained them specifically for that task.

2.2 – Indicators of licit aggressiveness

40Using the observation grid of Dugas (2006) dealing with observations in basketball, the observations, carried out using Chart 1, enable to discriminate levels of licit aggressiveness, on a scale from −2 to 2, 0 being the average.

Grid 1

The licit forms of aggressiveness used by karateka, whether convicts or club members. We can notice three distinct elements: licit praxic aggressiveness, licit kinesic aggressiveness, bows. The number of the practitioner is recorded and compared with the total number of practitioners in the session, the level of aggressiveness recorded for each item of observation, the number of total motor situations he/she was in, the possible level of illicit aggressiveness he/she displayed, whether he/she used it or not

Practitioner 2 AI N° Launched actions –2 –1 0 1 2 Kiais –2 –1 0 1 2 Bows –2 –1 0 1 2

The licit forms of aggressiveness used by karateka, whether convicts or club members. We can notice three distinct elements: licit praxic aggressiveness, licit kinesic aggressiveness, bows. The number of the practitioner is recorded and compared with the total number of practitioners in the session, the level of aggressiveness recorded for each item of observation, the number of total motor situations he/she was in, the possible level of illicit aggressiveness he/she displayed, whether he/she used it or not

41The observation grid of licit aggressive practices (praxic and kinesic) [12] was filled after observing a certain amount of discriminating elements. The recorded data included: the number of proposed educational situations including actions initiated and carried out by the practitioner, the number of proposed educational situations involving “kiais” and finally, the number of proposed educational situations involving bows. For each of those items, a second observation record dealt with the level of aggressiveness, with the following precise scale, from −2 to 2: −2: very low aggressiveness / −1: low aggressiveness / 0: average aggressiveness / 1: aggressive behavior / 2: very aggressive behavior. All those records were established by the observers according to the determined criteria and are further displayed in Chart 2.

42We attempted to observe elements related to karate, in the framework of its inner logic and the forms of aggressiveness expressed in its practice:

• Launched actions (motor actions produced in attack, parry-riposte, dodging and counter-attack situations). Those actions can be observed in technical and tactic-technical situations;
• The “kiais” [13] or sound exhalations;
• Courtesies or bows expressed in the course of the practice. Those civilities are part of motor and socio-motor practice, and also are in the cultural and regulatory frame of reference. Bows are integrated in the “Regulation of Grades of the Specialized Commission for Dans and Grades and Equivalents” of the FFKDA (2015) and they constitute a genuine social code to be acquired. That regulation, specific to karate practice, implements the obligation for each and every practitioner to bow before and after exercises. That exercise of civility is incorporated in every motor practice, whether alone, in a duel or in a group. Even if it must be taught in the period of discovery of the practice, that activity seems to become self-imposed for experienced practitioners, without any external command.

43Those three elements, which are part of observation grids, have been retained due to their affiliation to the logic of the activity, as it includes production of both aggressiveness and civility. As for the criteria, they are determined after the “Regulation of Grades of the Specialized Commission of Dans and Grades and Equivalents” of the FFKDA (2015). Those criteria [14] establish the genuine framework for the activities, their expression and expectations, as much in terms of educational as technical and tactical progression.

44Launched actions have to be undertaken with a significant physical involvement or a will to travel significant distances, such as the one enabling to reach a partner or to execute a motor action like a “kihon” (entry-level technique) or a “kata” (traditional form). A “kiai” must be expressed with vigor in order to associate muscular contractions, energy release and intimidation. A bow is a demonstration of empathy and respect, and can be practiced alone or in pairs.

45Here are possible examples when filling the grid:

Grid 2

Presentation of possible examples of evaluation criteria enabling to fill the observation grid. The examples target the forms of praxic and kinesic aggressiveness (launched actions “kiais”), as well as bows

Aggressiveness in launched actions 2 (very aggressive) Several criteria (see the regulation of grades of the CSDGE) associated to application of speed and strength (brief and intense contractions). 1 (aggressive) Several criteria associated to the application of a physical quality, such as speed or strength. 0 (averagely aggressive) Several criteria, but no application of a physical quality, such as speed or strength. –1 (low aggressiveness) One criterion, but no application of a physical quality, such as speed or strength. –2 (very low aggressiveness) No criterion and no application of a physical quality, such as speed or strength. No involvement in the motor exercise. Aggressiveness in “kiais” 2 (very aggressive) Intense cry and search for extreme efficiency, showing decisiveness. 1 (aggressive) Cry and search for strength and speed. 0 (averagely aggressive) Audible sound exhalation. –1 (low aggressiveness) Low sound exhalation. –2 (very low aggressiveness) No cry, inaudible or nonexistent exhalation. No involvement in the kinesic exercise. Aggressiveness in bows 2 (very aggressive) No bow in return to the partner. 1 (aggressive) Bow performed very quickly while carrying out another task. 0 (averagely aggressive) Bow performed quickly, glancing at the work target. –1 (low aggressiveness) Bow performed slowly, glancing at the work target. –2 (very low aggressiveness) Bow performed slowly, glancing at the floor.

Presentation of possible examples of evaluation criteria enabling to fill the observation grid. The examples target the forms of praxic and kinesic aggressiveness (launched actions “kiais”), as well as bows

2.3 – Data collection

46The observations were carried out from February 22^nd, 2013 to May 26^th, 2015, with an added demonstration carried out on November 19^th, 2014. Mr. Paul and Mr. Jacques, trained by Mr. François (one of the authors) to the process of observation, collected the information reported in either Chart 1 or observation grid. Paul (a sport instructor employed by the Remand Home of Fresnes) principally dealt with observations in detention, and Jacques (a sport instructor employed by the Avenir Sportif club in Orly) dealt with observations within a community association. François did some occasional observations in both environments.

47The observations of convicts in prison were carried out with an immediate filling of the grids in the course of nine training sessions (comprising a mix of entry-level techniques or “kihon,” “kumite,” “kata” as well as a very important part devoted to physical training based on resistance, strength training performed through bodyweight exercises) and a demonstration displayed to convicts (“kumite” and “kata” exercises). Trainings were not mixed and lasted one hour.

48The observations of community association practitioners, who came and trained in prison and with convicts, were carried out during three training sessions performed in that environment.

49The observations in community associations were carried out with an immediate filling of the grid during 21 sessions (11 sessions comprising practices with “kumite” and “kata,” 4 “kumite” and combat trainings, 5 combat-only trainings, 1 training comprising an exam rehearsal of “dans” and grades). The sessions were mixed (male and female) and lasted one hour.

50The repetitions of exercises were on average as follows: “kumite” training, from 4 to 6 situations repeated 10 times; “kata” training, from 3 to 5 situations repeated 6 to 10 times; combat training, from 3 to 5 situations repeated 8 times plus 3 to 5 combats.

51The observations carried out by the above-mentioned populations in the framework of their practice enable to discriminate the levels of praxic aggressiveness in launched actions, kinesic aggressiveness in “kiais” and the respect of courtesies in the practice of bows.

52It may be relevant to mention that the karate teaching carried out at the Remand Home of Fresnes had a more traditional aspect. That means a strong import in the practice of “kata,” of exercises of entry-level techniques and “kumite,” or conventional and free attacks. Consequently, that teaching was less rooted in the current trend expressed in karate and its sportification. The convicts were trained to a form of physical practice, with two purposes: a personal objective to pursue identity construction and a collective objective which was wished for by the penitentiary administration as much as by the convicts. Those expectations are nevertheless to be demonstrated with observations or interviews for example.

3.1 – Results concerning aggressiveness in launched actions

55For launched actions, the comparison of averages concerning the groups of “convicts” and “club practitioners” shows: 0.86 (convicts) / 1.71 (practitioners). The difference in these averages is very significant (t = 6.13; 1 − p > 99.99%). The complementary comparison of averages concerning the “convict” and “external” groups shows a difference which is not significant (t = 1.00; 1 − p < 67.8%) with 0.86 (convicts) / 1.17 (external). Finally, the comparison of averages concerning the “external” (in prison) and “club practitioners” shows 1.17 (external) / 1.71 (practitioners), which represents a difference that is not significant (t = 1.91; 1 − p < 94.6%). Convicts show less aggressiveness in their actions than club practitioners, even though the difference is not significant because there are very few of the latter.

Grid 3

Observations of all the launched actions expressed in “kihon,” alone or targeted, conventional or free attacks and in “kata,” for populations of convicts and club members of both sexes. They show significant disparities depending on the observed populations

Category of practitioners Launched actions Convicts 0.86 External to detention 1.17 Club members 1.71 Total 1.45

Observations of all the launched actions expressed in “kihon,” alone or targeted, conventional or free attacks and in “kata,” for populations of convicts and club members of both sexes. They show significant disparities depending on the observed populations

3.2 – Results concerning aggressiveness in “kiais”

56For the “kiais,” the comparison of averages concerning the “convicts” and “club practitioners” shows: 0.30 (convicts) / 1.42 (practitioners). Here, the difference is very significant (t = 8.29;1− p > 99.99%). The comparison of averages concerning “external” (in prison) and “club practitioners” shows 1.33 (external) / 1.42 (practitioners), which does not represent a significant difference (t = 0.28 ; 1− p < 23.0%). Concerning “kiais,” the difference turns out to be obvious: convicts show much less aggressiveness than club practitioners. Compared with launched actions, external practitioners almost reach club practitioners’ level of aggressiveness.

Grid 4

Observations of all the “kiais” expressed in “kihon,” alone or targeted, in conventional or free attacks and in “kata,” for populations of convicts or club members of both sexes. They show significant disparities depending on the observed populations

Category of practitioners “Kiais” Convicts 0.30 External to detention 1.33 Club members 1.42 Total 1.10

Observations of all the “kiais” expressed in “kihon,” alone or targeted, in conventional or free attacks and in “kata,” for populations of convicts or club members of both sexes. They show significant disparities depending on the observed populations

3.3 – Results concerning salutes

57Concerning the bows, the comparison of averages concerning the “convicts” and “club practitioners” shows: −0.81 (convicts) / −2.00 (practitioners). There again, the difference is very significant (t = 10.1; 1 − p > 99.99%) with a reversal in the direction of aggressiveness compared to launched actions and “kiais.” To finish, the comparison of averages concerning “external” (in prison) and “club practitioners” shows −1.67 (external) / −2.00 (practitioners), which represents a difference that is not significant (t = 1.7 ; 1 − p < 91.5%). Convicts much less respect the form of bows than club practitioners, for whom respect is absolute. External practitioners are in-between.

Grid 5

Observations of all the bows performed before and after practices of “kihon,” alone or targeted, conventional or free attacks and “kata,” for populations of convicts or club members of both sexes. They show significant disparities depending on the observed populations

Category of practitioners Salutes Convicts –0.81 External to detention –1.67 Club members –2.00 Total –1.65

Observations of all the bows performed before and after practices of “kihon,” alone or targeted, conventional or free attacks and “kata,” for populations of convicts or club members of both sexes. They show significant disparities depending on the observed populations

58Here is a recap graph to illustrate those results:

Figure 2

Emphasis on the significant disparities, between both the types of practitioners and the observed items. We can notice that convicts get significantly less involved in the forms of aggressiveness brought into karate practice than club members. The same is true regarding the practice of bows, for which convicts show less respect and consideration than club members

Emphasis on the significant disparities, between both the types of practitioners and the observed items. We can notice that convicts get significantly less involved in the forms of aggressiveness brought into karate practice than club members. The same is true regarding the practice of bows, for which convicts show less respect and consideration than club members