16｜Why Styles Proliferate Without End — A “Japanese Food” Analogy

🍣Scope of this chapter. Why do karate styles (ryūha, 流派) keep multiplying? Hundreds of styles, federations, and kaiha (会派, sub-schools) exist around the world, and new ones keep appearing. The pattern resembles the way sushi, ramen, tonkatsu, and curry-rice — dishes with utterly different origins — are all called “Japanese food.” Precisely because “karate” is a word that has never been fully defined by a single founder or a single governing body, styles can proliferate almost without limit.

1. The Phenomenon of Style Proliferation

How many karate styles are there in the world?

The “Big Four” mainland styles (本土の四大流派): Shōtōkan-ryū (松濤館流), Gōjū-ryū (剛柔流), Shitō-ryū (糸東流), Wadō-ryū (和道流). These are the four schools recognized by the Japan Karatedo Federation (JKF) as its principal member styles.
Major Okinawan styles and lineages: Uechi-ryū (上地流), Shōrin-ryū / Kobayashi-ryū (小林流), Matsubayashi-ryū (松林流, “Pine-Forest School”), Shōrin-ryū (少林流, with the “Shaolin” reading), Okinawa Gōjū-ryū, and others. A naming caveat: 小林流 and 少林流 are both read Shōrin-ryū in Japanese, while 松林流 is read Matsubayashi-ryū. Three similar-sounding but distinct lineages, with different characters, founders, and pedigrees.
Full-contact (フルコンタクト) lineages: Kyokushin-kaikan (極真会館), Shinkyokushinkai (新極真会), Ashihara-kaikan (芦原会館), Satō-juku (佐藤塾), Shidōkan (士道館), and many more.
Styles that developed overseas: American Kenpo (アメリカン・ケンポー), various Shōtōkan-derived organizations around the world, various Okinawan-karate-derived organizations overseas, and so on.
Schools that took the name of a single dōjō and turned it into a style: extremely numerous.

There is no unified statistic for the number of karate styles or organizations worldwide. Claiming a specific figure — “thousands” — is therefore not really possible. But even the JKF itself describes the styles of traditional karate as “uncountable” (musū ni aru) on its own website.

2. Typical Patterns of Schism

The patterns by which karate styles multiply fall into a few recognizable types.

2.1 Schisms after the founder’s death

When the founder of a large style dies, succession disputes often produce schisms.

After Mas Ōyama (大山倍達, 1923–1994), founder of Kyokushin, died in 1994, the organization fragmented over the succession question. Today, the International Karate Organization Kyokushinkaikan (IKO), Shinkyokushinkai, and various Kyokushin Rengōkai groups coexist as parallel bodies.
Shōtōkan-ryū split similarly after Funakoshi Gichin (船越義珍, 1868–1957) died in 1957, fracturing into the Japan Karate Association (JKA, 日本空手協会), the Shōtō-kai (松濤會), multiple university-based lineages, and various overseas branches.

2.2 An instructor breaks away

A student leaves a teacher and founds a new style.

Ashihara Hideyuki (芦原英幸) left Kyokushin and founded Ashihara-kaikan in 1980.
Soeno Yoshiji (添野義二), also from Kyokushin, founded Shidōkan around 1980.
Innumerable “○○-dōjō” and “○○-juku” lineages have been born this way.

2.3 Regional / national independence

An overseas branch — or a practitioner who learned martial arts abroad — founds a style of their own.

Ed Parker (1931–1990) studied Kenpo under William K.S. Chow in Hawaii, founded the International Kenpo Karate Association (IKKA) in 1956, and systematized American Kenpo in the continental United States.
Chuck Norris (born 1940) trained in Tang Soo Do (Korean: Dangsudo; a Korean martial art whose name uses the same characters, 唐手道, that once denoted karate) during his U.S. Air Force service in South Korea. In 1990 he founded his own system, Chun Kuk Do.

2.4 Schism over philosophy or training method

Differences in training philosophy or doctrine generate splits.

Whether to push toward competition or to preserve tradition.
Whether to allow strikes to the face.
Whether to develop the art primarily as a sport or as a budō.

3. Why the Proliferation Never Stops

The reasons for the continual proliferation of karate styles are structural.

3.1 The ambiguity of the term “karate”

As we saw in Part III, the definition of “karate” is itself ambiguous. Is it an unarmed combat sport, a budō (武道, “martial way”), or a modern Olympic sport? Does it center on kata (型, prearranged forms) or on kumite (組手, sparring)? Is it practiced sundome (寸止め, pulling strikes just short of contact) or full-contact?

That ambiguity leaves room for every style to claim “we are the real karate.” No single party can monopolize the definition.

3.2 The absence of a single governing body

Jūdō has a strong symbolic center in the Kōdōkan (講道館), and on the competitive side the International Judo Federation (IJF) and the national federations form an integrated system. Kendō, similarly, has the All Japan Kendo Federation (全日本剣道連盟) and the International Kendo Federation as major institutional anchors. Karate has nothing equivalent — no single worldwide body that encompasses every school.

The Japan Karatedo Federation (JKF, 全空連) is recognized as Japan’s national federation by the World Karate Federation (WKF) and is an accredited member organization of the Japanese Olympic Committee. But it does not unitarily govern the Kyokushin lineage, the full-contact groups, the Okinawan groups, or the independent kaiha. This dispersion of authority makes it easy for new styles to declare independence.

3.3 Privately issued ranks (dan)

Karate’s dan (段, black-belt rank) system is issued independently by each style and organization. Jūdō also has the Kōdōkan, the national federations, and the competition body operating in parallel — but at the very least “Kōdōkan jūdō” provides a strong shared foundation. In karate, by contrast, dan criteria differ from one style to the next, and a new style can easily issue “our own dan.” This mechanism actively encourages independence.

3.4 Commercial incentives

Karate styles and dōjō are often commercial enterprises. Holding your own style means holding a brand and establishing a distinctive market position. These commercial incentives push proliferation forward.

4. The “Japanese Food” Analogy

Now to the analogy in the title.

Sushi, ramen, tonkatsu, curry-rice, tempura, sukiyaki, okonomiyaki — all of these are called “Japanese food.” But their origins and historical formation differ completely.

Dish	Origin	Period of formation
Sushi	Descended from fermented-preservation foods; developed independently in Japan	Antiquity through the Edo period, with major transformations
Ramen	Chinese noodle dishes, popularized and specialized in Japan	Late Meiji and Taishō onward (early 20th c.)
Tonkatsu	Western cutlet (côtelette), reworked as Japanese yōshoku	Late Meiji, Taishō, and Shōwa periods
Curry-rice	Indian curry, introduced via British colonial channels, then Japanized	Meiji period onward
Tempura	Influence of Iberian nanban cuisine and frying techniques; Japanized in the Edo period	Late 16th c. onward; firmly established by Edo
Sukiyaki	Linked to the gyū-nabe (beef hot-pot) culture that emerged after the Meiji-era lifting of the meat-eating ban	Meiji period onward

All of these are called “Japanese food,” but their origins are scattered across the world. After arriving in Japan, each developed in its own way and is now safely housed under the category “Japanese food.”

“Japanese food,” then, is not a cuisine with a single origin or a single technique. It is a retrospective category — an after-the-fact umbrella for “dishes that have been received, transformed, and developed in Japan.” If a new dish takes root in Japan’s food culture, it too can become “Japanese food.” The category is open-ended, and precisely because the definition has slack, it can keep expanding.

5. The Structural Parallel Between Karate and “Japanese Food”

The proliferation of karate styles parallels the expansion of “Japanese food” structurally.

Karate has no precise definition.
So a new style can claim, “we, too, are karate.”
That new style is then added to the karate set.
The category expands, again.

The process is non-terminating. As long as “karate” is not given a sharp definition, the proliferation of styles will not stop.

6. “Karate” as a Bottom-Up Concept

Just as the category “Japanese food” is an after-the-fact umbrella over an aggregate of dishes, “karate” too is best understood as an aggregate of lineages, styles, and organizations.

In other words, “karate” is not a category that comes first as a strict definition, with styles then sorted under it. Rather, the category emerges from the overlap of: Okinawan te / tode, mainland karate-dō, competitive (sport) karate, full-contact karate, and karate-style practices that developed overseas. Philosophically, we might call this a bottom-up concept.

This structure is the source of karate’s flexibility and pluralism. When a new style is born, it is hard to uniformly exclude it as “not karate.” A new style can, retrospectively, update what “karate” means.

7. The Costs of Proliferation

The proliferation of styles has costs.

Lack of unity. What counts as “orthodox karate” becomes unclear.
Uneven quality. Training quality varies sharply across styles.
Obstacles to internationalization. Olympic adoption and a single global ruleset both require standardization.
Unreliable ranks. Different styles use different dan criteria, so external comparison is hard.

These problems are debated again and again. But it is structurally difficult to halt proliferation altogether — because the term “karate” has slack in its definition, and because authority is dispersed.

8. The Benefits of Proliferation

There are also benefits.

Preservation of diversity. Many different practices coexist.
Room for innovation. New interpretations and methods can emerge.
Local adaptation. Practice can be adapted to local cultures and preferences.
Room for individuality. A style can reflect a single leader’s personal vision.

These benefits keep karate alive as a living budō — not a fixed tradition but a dynamic system that is constantly being rebuilt.

9. Comparison: Why Judō Is Different

Jūdō, by contrast with karate, has kept style proliferation relatively in check, thanks to a strong center at the Kōdōkan and a competitive system organized around the IJF.

Kōdōkan jūdō has a clear center: founder, headquarters, and doctrine.
The IJF unifies competition rules across the world.
Martial arts that diverged from and evolved beyond jūdō — Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu being the prime example — are now generally treated as a separate category from “jūdō.”

This unity owes a great deal to Kanō Jigorō‘s leadership and to the symbolic gravity of the Kōdōkan. Karate has had no equivalent single unifying authority.

The difference comes from history. Jūdō had Kanō, a single powerful founder. Karate, by contrast, was formed through multiple masters, multiple regions, multiple styles, and multiple organizations; a single unifying authority was always hard to establish.

10. Conclusion — Ambiguity as Karate’s Mode of Existence

One conclusion. The endless proliferation of karate styles is a consequence of the ambiguity of the term “karate.” And that ambiguity is, simultaneously, karate’s weakness and karate’s strength.

Karate exists as an open-ended category that has never been given a tight definition. That is exactly why people all over the world can interpret “karate” in their own cultural and personal contexts and make it their own. Just as “Japanese food” unfolds across the globe in many forms, “karate” unfolds across the globe in many forms.

Whether you read this ambiguity as a defect or as a feature is a question of standpoint. This serial essay sides with neither verdict. We only describe the fact: ambiguity is karate’s mode of existence.

📝A note for newcomers. Imagine trying to explain “Japanese food” to someone who has never been to Japan. Is it sushi? Ramen? Sukiyaki? The honest answer depends on context. Karate is similar. You cannot point to a single style and say “this is karate.” Karate exists as the collection of many styles, federations, and lineages.

Selected Bibliography

Kadekaru, T. (2017). The Creation and Development of Okinawan Karate: A Study Through the Transitions of Its Name. Doctoral dissertation, Waseda University. [嘉手苅徹『沖縄空手の創造と展開：呼称の変遷を手がかりにして』早稲田大学博士論文]
Kinjō, H. (2011). From Tōde to Karate. Tokyo: Nippon Budōkan. [金城裕『唐手から空手へ』日本武道館]
Ōyama, M. (1976). The Way to Kyokushin: My Karate Philosophy. Tokyo: Nichibō Shuppansha. [大山倍達『極真への道：私の空手哲学』日貿出版社]
Okada, T. (2000). The Birth of Tonkatsu: The Beginnings of Meiji-Era Western Cuisine in Japan. Kōdansha Sensho Métier. [岡田哲『とんかつの誕生：明治洋食事始め』講談社選書メチエ]
Harada, N. (1993). Rice and Meat in History: Food, the Emperor, and Discrimination. Heibonsha Sensho 147. [原田信男『歴史のなかの米と肉：食物と天皇・差別』平凡社選書147]
Cwiertka, K. J. (2006). Modern Japanese Cuisine: Food, Power and National Identity. Reaktion Books.
Japan Karatedo Federation (JKF), “What Is Karate-dō?” https://www.jkf.ne.jp/whats_karatedo
Japan Karatedo Federation (JKF), “History.” https://www.jkf.ne.jp/history
Kōdōkan, “History of Kōdōkan Judo.” https://kdkjudo.org/history/
Ashihara-kaikan, “What is ‘Ashihara Karate’?” https://ashiharakaikan.com/cat02/about.html
Shidōkan, “World Karatedō Federation [Shidōkan] Official Website.” https://shidokan.jp/about/

“What Is Karate?” — A Multidimensional Inquiry Through Thought, History, and Sociology