Introduction
Mutual gaze and evolving play encapsulates the spirit of the Liberation Martial Arts (LMA) approach in one activity. Even with the same partner, it is impossible to play the same game twice. Change is not just the core of this activity; it is inevitable. Change is the only constant. The game evolves over the iterations, reflecting how our movements and interactions with others are constantly in flux. The one rule for this game that never changes is mutual gaze—the partners must keep looking at each other, continuously maintaining connection and alignment throughout the game.
As the game progresses, new conditions are added, causing the game to organically evolve. Like our ancestors, we learn through iteration and play rather than rigid standardization. One of the most fascinating aspects of this game is how it can start to resemble folk dance or folk martial arts traditions. This isn't by design but by the nature of learning from the same "teachers" as our ancestors—our bodies, the conditions, movement diversity, and the environment. These influences shape our movements, which belong to us and no one else. We own our bodies and our movements.
Games can be top-down
Doing games alone doesn't equate to practicing LMA. A helpful analogy is the difference between how top-down parents and gentle parents approach play. Gentle parents use play as the primary mode of learning, where what is learned remains open-ended. There's no specific outcome in mind, only the potential for discovery. By contrast, top-down parents treat play as something "earned"—a commodity within a capitalist paradigm. Play becomes a reward, a break from learning rather than learning itself—but it's still under the shadow of surveillance and judgment. It exists in opposition to work and development. Rather than deconstructing the colonial stick-and-carrot model, it reinforces it. The intent is ultimately not about fun but control and correction, where learning is segmented into rewards and punishments.
Similarly, movement instructors, especially in martial arts, use games as a break from learning or as a carrot for diligent learners. Despite using games, games are never the focal point of learning itself. Instead, games are presented as a counter or a distraction from learning rather than its fundamental feature. This is why they are rarely sustained or used in a "serious" learning context.
Another example of this top-down structure is when games are used to lead practitioners to a pre-determined, instructor-centered outcome. Who then owns the movement? Instead of being learner-centered and fostering exploration, they manipulate participants into practicing specific movements, reinforcing a colonial, prescriptive approach to learning. It's backward-looking, zoomed in on one precise outcome rather than forward-looking, zoomed out on the learner's conditions and evolving movement landscape. The real question becomes: is the goal to "perfect" a specific move or to become a better, more adaptive mover?
In this game, we are moving like our ancestors—not because that's the intention but because it's emerging from the same soil. The descriptions of this game come from after-the-fact observations. It is a retrospective explanation rather than a pre-set goal. Practitioners aren't told to think about any of this; they are simply encouraged to be in the moment. However, understanding this background helps training organizers demystify the LMA process and eliminate the startle response practitioners often have toward unfamiliar experiences.
