kwan significance?

[exile]

I don't mean to be flippant, but it's the only way I can describe my thought. Is this like the Star Trek "borg" idea? Assimiliate, so there's no distictiveness? "We're all one?"

Iceman, I don't think there's anything flippant in the least about your comment. It sums up my own thinking about `Kwan unification' exactly. The pressure to give up the individual curricula and technical bases of the different kwans came from the desire of the ROK military for a combative standard. To me, it flies in the face of what nature is constantly reminding us: monoclonal environments are much more fragile than those with a lot of diversity. In a diverse environment, competing ideas get tested and pushed to improve by the competition; by constrast, when there's forced conformity, with top-down control of technical development, things are much less likely to stand or fall on their own merits. Not so good for the art, IMO...

 

[Last Fearner]

... In a diverse environment, competing ideas get tested and pushed to improve by the competition; by constrast, when there's forced conformity, with top-down control of technical development, things are much less likely to stand or fall on their own merits. Not so good for the art, IMO...

I believe I understand what you are saying here, exile, and I agree with the concept. One thing to consider though is the philosophy of "united we stand, divided we fall." If it is the perception of the Korean Taekwondo leaders that too much conflict (not healthy competition) between the Kwans is self destructive, and all could work towards a common goal, then better to have a unified effort under one leadership.

On the other hand, what does it really change to have this authoritarian power in Taekwondo. The military is not exactly democratic. I think instructors will still do as they please within their own dojang, they will simply adjust to the requirements of the whole organizational body instead of being left to wander off in any direction. Perhaps the spirit of healthy competition will come about in Korea as a comparison to what others in countries around the world are doing. They can unify and be challenged to be better by pitting their skills against the international community of diversity. Just a thought!

Also, I don't really believe in the idea that the Kwans are somehow being assimilated into one. It is difficult to make people forget who their parents and grandparents are. You will not get these Kwan members, even in Korea, to ignore who it was that first taught them as a white belt, and guided them to Black Belt. Their lineage is set for life, and they will always pass this on to their students, even if behind closed doors. Some people do not realize how strong, and deep-rooted the sentiments are about the Kwans to those in a Kwan. Surprisingly enough, it has a lot less to do with what curriculum is being taught than who has power in political decisions, who runs the show, and who is making the money.

In America, it could be compared to the political parties of Republicans, Democrats, Independents, etc. You could tell them they must "unite" under one leader, but they will still be Republicans and Democrats at heart. Behind closed doors, no one is going to make these Kwan leaders stop promoting their own Kwan, their own people into power, and their own agenda. It may appear more unified on the surface, but deep down, they will always hold true to their Kwan - - their family.

That's been my experience.
CM D.J. Eisenhart

 

[rmclain]

Is there a real significance to tae kwon do schools belonging to one kwan or another? And can a school decide what kwan they belong to or is it tied to the instructors lineage?

I started in tae kwon do at a fairly young age, and for several years I had never heard of belonging to this kwan or that kwan. I never really knew what kwan meant or which one we belonged to.

The reason I ask is because I know of a school that used to claim to be one, but now claims to be another.

It is sort of "rediculous" for a school to hang on to an old kwan name, if they are not passing along the curriculum from that kwan. If the instructor originally trained in the old system but no longer teaches it - sure, show credit to the school that you originally came from and your lineage. This would be the respectful thing to do.

But, to still use a kwan name and instruct a different curriculum is stupid.

I see this alot among TKD schools. Claims of "we're Jido-kwan," or "we're Changmoo-kwan," etc., when they are simply a sport-oriented WTF school teaching the Palgue or Tae Guek forms and tournament competition. I haven't met any instructor doing this that even knows the name of the person that founded the kwan they claim, let alone the curriculum.

R. McLain

 

[wade]

Thank you rmclain. I think that is where I am at now. I don't think I really have a claim to a quan because of the way I was trained and the way I teach. I really am an orphan, and you know, I think I like it this way.