Integrity

[numskul]

This week we are meditating on Integrity. Integrity is a big one among the many martial arts principles. I also think it is quite misunderstood in our modern world and context. It is true that others value integrity and having it improves our relationships with those about us. But that context fails to address why integrity is so important to the practitioner himself; not just the world around him. Will integrity help you punch harder? Not directly. Will integrity help you be a better martial artist? Absolutely. Maintaining integrity builds self-respect and a settled spirit which are foundations for the practice and learning of martial arts. It is a binding concept that provides cohesiveness and form to the presence of other principles in our minds, bodies and spirits. Integrity lies at the core of the “black belt” attitude.
Many modern Americans define integrity as trustworthiness, honesty or “goodness”. It may be true that these qualities result from the principle of integrity, but these characteristics are not a complete definition of the principle itself. In a nutshell, having integrity means that we set high moral expectations of ourselves and then live in a way that allows us to meet those expectations. From the Latin ‘integer’, integrity implies a sense of wholeness or entirety which conveys an aura of soundness or immovability. I see it as a harmony between belief (ethos) and action. Integrity may have become synonymous with sound character because most humans share a fairly common set of life principles and when a person believes and acts according to those principles, their behavior is considered “good” by their peers. However, the idea of good changes with each person and integrity can still occur in people society otherwise judges as “bad”. In the end, it is how we reconcile our personal actions against our personal ethos that determines if we have integrity. The judgment of good and bad only apply to the extent that it prevents us from reconciling our actions with our thoughts. In other words, true integrity- not just right acting- is not so much about specific principles as much as the unification and embodiment of those principles in our actions.
The concept of “honor among thieves” is a good example of this. Even criminals expect their associates to act towards them with integrity. Society at large may consider stealing “wrong” but that belief isn’t shared by everyone. When, therefore, a thief considers his accomplice a “man of integrity”, he means that this criminal is exemplifying the code of conduct both regard as a standard among thieving society. While you and I may have no appreciation for a thief, a person who’s ethos regards stealing as “OK”, as long as they don’t steal from a fellow thief, remains integrated when they steal something from you or I.In the end, it is not what society considers right or wrong that determines a person’s integrity. It is what THEY consider right and wrong and how well they live up to their highest standard of conduct against those expectations.Integrity, therefore, can be considered an “inside job”.
This is where achievement of a settled spirit comes in. When we act with integrity (i.e. staying on the path set by our moral compass) we are free from the distraction of guilt and disappointment in ourselves for not living up to our own expectations or standards. We are free of regret and not hindered by thoughts of “what we should have done”. We become safe and secure knowing we did the right thing to the best of our ability. Moreover, when our code of moral conduct matches that of society at large (and most of our codes do match, although there are exceptions) our behaviors are esteemed by our peers and our relations are improved. Who doesn’t want to engage with like-minded people who live up to their same standards we hold for ourselves? For most this means they can count on us to tell the truth, deal with them fairly, display mutual respect and be reliable. In short, we can be trusted. The lack of friction with our fellows is very important to the clearing of the mind necessary to achieve Mushin. Our spirit cannot be easily settled when we are at odds with our fellow humans or our own conflicted between our thoughts and actions.
How is integrity important to Hapkido? It is difficult to draw a direct parallel without crossing other principles. For instance, we can profess an honest work ethic, but unless we are able to marry our actions to that principle, we are not very likely to train very hard and our learning suffers. Likewise, we can “think” we are loyal to our instructors and arts, but unless we are loyal in our action and associations, we are not truly integrated. These, and other examples, have multiple effects on Hapkido. First, a lack of integrity creates an unsettled spirit contrary to the achievement of Mushin. Next, much of Hapkido training requires principled living. We have to be willing to sacrifice, work hard, stay positive and help others. Without putting these concepts into ACTION, our time spent training will be wasted. Finally, if I am not acting with integrity, I am not representing my art respectfully. Others may see the practitioners of Hapkido as people of many words and few principles. They may never see the product of a person striving to live the “Martial Way”. Aspiring to earn a black belt in Hapkido without practicing black belt principles is like trying to become a pilot without studying navigation. The pursuit is as empty as the accomplishment and not worthy of time, effort or thought.

[David Craik]

The common definition of integrity, one of the 14 leadership traits in the Marine Corps, has always interested me. As it applies to people, integrity is often used as a synonym for honesty, uprightness.

However, as it applies to anything else, integrity signifies 'wholeness', 'soundness', 'unadulterated', or 'in a genuine state'. As you say, it derives from 'integritas/integer': entire.

Therein lies the quandary. To sync the definition as it applies to people to the root 'integritas' we must all be 'good' and 'honest' by nature, and acting in a dishonest way is an aberration. But what of the career thief who returns money he found or realizes a cashier gave him too much change back and yet does not pocket it? Does he not lack integrity by not following his nature? If Dahmer became a vegetarian, or Hitler started promoting Jewish sovereignty?

Since noone is perfectly good nor perfectly evil, does anyone really have 'integrity'? Is anyone not lazy sometimes and do not the normally disrespectful shock you occasionally with politeness? Jesus Christ would have 'integrity', of course, but would not also Satan if he were considered a being of pure evil?

For the best analogy I can think of I have to reach into the annals of nerd-dom and use the character classes from Dungeons and Dragons. I only played once in the 80's, but the monster descriptions are really cool. Anyway, you have:

Lawful Good: Acts in a just and honest way in every instance.
Chaotic Good: Acts good most of the time, but once in awhile gets into mischief.
Lawful Evil: Always acts in accordance with his evil nature.
Chaotic Evil: Evil most of the time, might save a puppy now and again if it strikes his fancy.

I posit that both 'Lawful' characters have the same amount of 'integrity', or at least that's what the definition should be. This is not to say being dishonest or evil is desirable or of value, but acting according to one's moral code - be it 'right' or 'wrong' - is 'unadulterated' and 'entire'. These characters are boring to play, because they act in accordance with their nature every single time.

I realize I'm odd. A teacher I had once defined a 'protagonist' as 'the one you root for'. I asked 'What if someone were to root for the bad guy, would the definitions change?'.

She said with a smile, 'Only you root for the bad guy, David.' Which isn't the case really.

What I finally realized is that 'integrity', whether in martial arts, the USMC, a police department, church, Boy Scouts, etc. depends not so much on ones own mores but on how well your ethics and morals match that of the organization. The USMC, a dojo, a police department; all of these should prize honesty, respect etc. An honest, just, respectful, and hardworking member of these organizations has 'integrity': their traits are integral to what they are supposed to represent. But on the other hand, you have Congress and Maddoff's investment firm...I guess an inveterate liar would also be considered to have 'integrity' in that environment.

One cannot extrapolate the 'organization' to 'society as a whole' without adhering to rather Confucianist ideals..'integrity' is then based on a social construct's desires rather than an individual trait. If you move to a dishonest society are you still 'integral'? Not that mainstream modern society really espouses much of anything anymore anyway.

If by telling the truth one would be responsible for the death of innocents, is this integrity, or would one show more integrity by lying? On a lesser scale does one show more integrity by telling one's wife that she looks ridiculous in a certain dress and hurting her feelings or by saying she looks just fine and going out with her while others snicker at her wardrobe? The difference between honto and makoto I guess. There are no hard and fast rules for acting appropriately in every situation or magical 'keyword' traits that always apply. Any Sengoku daimyo would tell you that a moral code begs to be broken, given the right circumstances. All you can do is what seems right at the time and hope you chose properly. This applies to pretty much any trait you can come up with, morality can become a pretty tangled web.

[Jeff C.]

I would bet that many terrorists/suicide bombers have a lot of integrity, within the context of their radicalized religion and set of moral values. They are highly respected, even revered, by their peers.

Jeff Cook

[David Craik]

Exactly Jeff, as would kamikaze pilots. Hit the nail on the head. Having 'integrity', like being a 'warrior', hardly makes one 'right' or 'noble'. Like 'honor', a societal construct.

[Jeff C.]

Like minds, brother.

None of the leadership traits can really stand alone without context. They also require some sort of moral framework by which to define them, which tells us that they are not absolute terms.

Jeff Cook

[David Craik]

Anybody ever tell you you're a wise fella, Jeff? You sum up easily what I use a lotta verbal diarrhea for.

[Jeff C.]

No wiser than you my friend. Just a couple of old crusty E7's that have a coherent thought every now and then.

Jeff Cook

[numskul]

Therein lies the quandary. To sync the definition as it applies to people to the root 'integritas' we must all be 'good' and 'honest' by nature, and acting in a dishonest way is an aberration. But what of the career thief who returns money he found or realizes a cashier gave him too much change back and yet does not pocket it? Does he not lack integrity by not following his nature? If Dahmer became a vegetarian, or Hitler started promoting Jewish sovereignty?

I agree with your assertions and believe there are two definitions we can ponder; both applicable:

1) Integrity as it applies to a society's belief you live according to ITS laws and principles
2) Being self-integrated (living up to your own beliefs regardless of societal mores)

The first is good for harmonious relations with others. The second is good for harmonious relations with ourselves. It is desirable, therefore, to live in a society where your principles closely match with those about you. Then, in doing what you feel is right, you are also living harmoniously with your fellows.

I also believe that the mass majority of humans share a majority of similar ethical principles. Being ethical in the USA may be slightly different than in Korea, but the biggies are there and I think most Koreans would recognize the integrity of an American who "has it". I think the opposite is also true.

I also agree that not everyone can have perfect integrity in both contexts. The human condition wouldn't be the same without some conflict!

[Storiale]

I think the dictionary definitions do not come close to defining integrity - too closely relates to honesty and morality. The 3 are different.

Integrity: U.S. Army - Doing What Is Right, Even When No One is Looking
Then another one taken from a leadership course has 3 levels and is a discipline in and of itself:

1. Doing what you said you were going to do BY WHEN you said you would do it - and communicating to those affected as soon as you know that you can not.
2. Being True to Your Beliefs and Ideals
3. Being True to Your Self

The first one sounds easy, but people that do more than lounge around the couch watching TV all day, will find it as much a discipline as anything in their lives. To do everything you said you would do implicitly or explicitly is not easy AND the you have to do it BY WHEN you said you would do it by.

This encompasses everything from being on time to finishing the project at work instead of being on Facebook, etc.

The first level is so difficult, if you only did THAT - your peers would say that you have integrity, just because you were at level 1. How many times do people flake on their word?

Then second level of number 1 is Implicitly give your word - all laws within the borders in which you live are inherently your Word unless otherwise stated publicly and willing to accept the consequences (Gandhi had integrity although he defied the laws of England because he declared that he would no longer follow them and was prepared to withstand the consequences).

In other words - pay your taxes, do not illegally park, do not commit a crime, give the money back, etc. All of this is inside Doing What You Said You Would Do - do this and your peers will admire you. It is rare to see and refreshing.

[Storiale]

I think the dictionary definitions do not come close to truly setting integrity apart from honesty and morality. The 3 are different.

The U.S. Army's definition was quite good while I served, which is - "Doing What Is Right, Even When No One is Looking." Very good for someone that has a sense of right and wrong. Also good for someone that puts the team ahead of themselves. But for those that see things the opposite way, "Doing What is Right" has a lot of different meanings.


I took a few leadership courses at private companies through the years and found the word Integrity to be defined in 3 parts - each being a discipline in and of itself.

1. Doing what you said you were going to do BY WHEN you said you would do it
and communicating to those affected as soon as you know that you can not

2. Being True to Your Beliefs and Ideals - working in a job that cheats people out of their money is an Integrity Issue for the person, even though it is only their job.

3. Being True to Your Self - Being a mechanic when you actually want to be a singer, business owner, an artist etc. Being true to yourself is important. Men live lives of quiet desperation because of number 3 - be who you are fully.

The first one sounds easy, but people that do more than lounge around the couch watching TV all day, will find it as much a discipline as anything in their lives. To do everything you said you would do is not easy AND then you have to do it BY WHEN you said you would do it by.

This encompasses everything from being on time to finishing the project at work, to calling home if you will be late, to being at your kid's game on time, to live up to your marriage vows. Are you getting it?

The first level is so difficult, if you only did THAT - your peers would say that you have integrity, just because you were fairly adept at level 1. Most people can not (not even for a week) truly do what they say they will do by when they say they will do it and communicating it as soon as possible to everyone involved when you know that you can not. It is a lifelong discipline for sure.