Parkour is, from a cultural perspective, new and radically different. Where laziness has festered like a plague, any exercise that is not within predefined boundaries will be looked at with multitudes of expressions. Some will look with awe and amazement, and congratulate traceurs on their mindset, their dedication, and their ability to react to crises. Some will be indifferent. Some, who greatly misunderstand what we do, will look at us with anger and hatred. That is the natural way for humanity. It is of great importance that traceurs recognize that our discipline will lend itself to outward aggression more easily than other disciplines and activities. It is also of great importance to understand how we must act in those situations.

Martial arts training, by and large, is the training for war. It is the training for the fight. We can look at martial arts, such as Vo Binh Dinh, that developed directly from the need for a warring practice for evidence of this. We can look at a discipline such as Shaolin Kung Fu as evidence, as well, even if it developed as a means of personal self-defense against bandits. The principle idea is that in a situation where confrontation is assured, the need to fight arises. Shaolin monks, in retreating, only lent themselves to more muggings and more killings over time. To fight back meant to inspire some kind of fear. It could stop the violence.

On the contrary to this, Parkour training is the training for peace. Or, at least, it should be. Parkour is training for flight. It is a means of avoiding confrontation, not pursuing it. It is why traceurs are taught to approach authority figures who would ask us to leave, rather than just running from the situation (where, in such a situation, running is more likely to cause a confrontation rather than avoid it). It is the idea that we should be actively training for peace and peaceful resolutions to conflict that should become greatly invested into a traceur’s methodology.

The fundamental problem that arises is what the best way to avoid confrontation is. As stated above, sometimes, running away can be the very catalyst for a confrontation. Ignoring an aggressor can escalate a conflict. Even being polite can cause unwarranted aggression. The problem of conflict-avoidance becomes very complicated very quickly. How can training for peace be accomplished? What should our methods be? If the physical practice of Parkour no longer becomes an adequate means of conflict-avoidance, then does Parkour as a whole become frivolous?

We will first address the last question, because without that first answered, it may become difficult to even assess the practicality of the discipline or what is meant by “training for peace.” While it is true that we have oft-envisioned the “escape” scenario of Parkour’s practicality, this does not become the primary focus of the discipline. It is merely part of a whole. This is not an essay on the meaning or application of Parkour, and it will not delve far into that, but we must approach this topic with the understanding that Parkour is a vehicle to further grasping at the potential and functionality of the human body. It is a means to understand the body as a vehicle of transportation, and to further progress the self, as well as learn the many ways in which the human person can be useful in personal, social, physical, and mental situations. As this understanding is established, the utility of Parkour not only comes from the ability to escape, but the ability to properly use both the body and the mind. The applied focus of the physical practice extends outward, where the physical fitness and intense training for functionality serves a useful purpose, and the meditative pursuit of the mind as a result of training also serves a useful purpose. Of course, this ideology can and probably will raise many arguing voices, but we will, for practicality’s sake, go ahead with it as a basis for this paper.

In the practice of conflict-avoidance, we begin to understand how important meditation becomes in actual training. Some feel the very practice is meditative, and some like to meditate before, after, or during their training, but nevertheless, there is a mental capacity involved in training. It is the exercise of this mental capacity, the achievement of mindfulness and no-mind at once, that can help us understand how to best approach a conflict and resolve it. The traceur must be mindful of her environment in all circumstances, when training and when not. At the same time, the traceur must be careful not to let mindfulness be confused with a flooding of passions, because passions can cloud. To respond angrily to a conflict will at once escalate that conflict.

It is pertinent to note that sometimes outright politeness may be seen as rude and offensive. For what reason, I can never say, but some people will always feel that a person who acts politely in a conflict is acting cockishly, and therefore flare their defenses and increase their aggressions. It is these situations, when understanding the principles of training for peace, that the traceur must be kept mindful of. Is this a situation where being too polite will cause problems? Is this a situation where ignorance will result in added aggression? Is this a situation where walking, or running, away might result in a possible physical confrontation?

It is impossible, in an article, to state what the best means of avoiding conflict will be. There are general things which may seem, at first, obvious. Authoritative figures should be approached politely. Younger people are more likely to act aggressively if ignored. But this is not always the case, for authoritative figures can have short-fuses or no patience and younger people may end up being much more mature than a first glance would denote. It is for this reason that this paper only exposes the problems of conflict-avoidance, and argues for the mindfulness of the traceur, because it is only the individual traceur who can assess her situation properly and from there choose what the best course of action will be.

I can only wish you good luck, and ask that you continue upholding the ideal that traceurs should be training for peace.