Beating Swords into Ploughshares: Pondering Peace and Martial Arts

Beating Swords into Ploughshares:  Pondering Peace and Martial Arts
By Dr. Sanko Lewis

Presentation given at the 5th African Martial Arts Conference (“Solidarity in Action: Beyond Martial Arts Partnership”) on 25 October 2022, in Chungju, South Korea. (Organized by UNESCO-ICM.)

• “A military is a tool of misfortune, all things detest it … when one is compelled to use it, it is best to do so without relish, for there is no glory in victory … When people have many sharp weapons, the country becomes more chaotic” – Laozi (Daodejing, Chptrs 31 & 57)
• “There are men who say ‘I am skilful at marshalling troops, I am skilful at conducting a battle!’ They are great criminals” – Mencius (Jin Xin II, 50)
• “Those who live by the sword, die by the sword” – Jesus (Matthew 26)

Many great spiritual teachers have warned against martial activities. The very idea that we can use martial arts (or ‘skills of war’) for peace promotion is illogical. Yet it is something many martial artists propose. It was this paradox that was the main topic of my PhD dissertation entitled: “Preaching Peace, Practising War: Mohism’s Resolution of the Paradoxical Ethics of War and Self-Defence in East Asian Martial Arts”.

For this conference, I was asked to talk to you about using martial arts for peace, and this I will do, but with some hesitation, for I don’t think we should romanticize the martial arts, lest we forget that just as swords are forged for war, so too were the martial arts. Nevertheless, I’ll suggest that the martial arts can be used to promote peace in two broad ways—or rather, at two levels: first, at a governmental diplomatic level in the form of soft diplomacy; and second, at an personal or intra-personal level.

Martial arts have been used with a relative degree of success for soft power in the form of cultural- and sports diplomacy. “Soft power is the ability to affect others to obtain the outcomes one wants through attraction and persuasion rather than coercion or payment” (Nye, 2019). For example, let’s see how South Korea used martial arts as soft diplomacy. Before South Korea’s export of K-Pop and K-Drama, its main cultural export was martial arts: taekwondo and hapkido. From as early as the 1950s, South Korean martial arts instructors were sent abroad as soft power emissaries. Such instructors were often working closely with the local South Korean embassies and to this day continue to do so with other Korean organizations such as KOICA (Korea International Cooperation Agency), which falls under South Korea’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Through such cultural dissemination, South Korea created positive sentiment in millions of Korean martial arts practitioners around the world—and now possibly billions of K-Pop and K-Drama fans.

Taekwon-Do demonstration team members from North Korean and South Korea,
after performing together under the slogan: "Peace is more precious than triumph".

Taekwondo has also been used specifically for diplomacy between North Korean and South Korea. “The most prominent of these occurred in 2018 and 2019 when a series of joint performances with ROK and DPRK taekwondo demonstration teams were held across the ROK. These demonstrations led to other joint performances at a pre-opening ceremony of the 2019 PyeongChang Winter Olympic Games in the ROK and at taekwondo facilities in the DPRK. These performances initiated a renewed interest in dialogue between the DPRK and ROK as well as the DPRK and the US. A series of summits followed between the leaders of these three adversaries stuck in a 70-year long stalemate.” (Johnson & Lewis, 2020). Of course, there are limits to the success of these endeavours. Figuratively speaking, taekwondo was able to kick open the doors for peace talks, but the political leaders were not able to maintain the momentum of these peace negotiations. Unfortunately, taekwondo could not kick through the complicated obstacles of geopolitics. 

The Olympic Games provides an opportunity for athletes, sometimes even from antagonistic nations, to come together in a spirit of sportsmanship. Similarly, there are martial arts sporting events that do the same. The Asian Games, which after the Olympic Games is the biggest global sporting event, contains several combative sports beyond those that are in the Olympic Games. While the Olympic Games includes archery, boxing, fencing, judo, and taekwondo, the Asian Games also includes jujitsu, karate, and wushu. Other events like the International Martial Art Games and the numerous world championships of the many martial arts organizations around the world create liminal spaces for people to come together in a spirit of comradery. There are few other scenarios other than at such sporting events where people from antagonistic countries can come together, mingle and even become friends—all because of their shared love for their sport and martial arts.  

Russian and Ukrainian Taekwon-Do practitioners
sitting side-by-side at a Taekwon-Do Championship.
(Photo source unknown.)

For this reason, I was personally disappointed when I heard that World Taekwondo has moved to ban Russian athletes from international competitions, and I heard similar calls from the ITF Taekwon-Do community to ban Russian Taekwon-Do athletes from participating at international ITF Taekwon-Do events because of the Russian Federation’s invasion of Ukraine. My disappointment is not because I support Russia’s action—I do not support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. However, rather than use Taekwon-Do to drive people further apart, I think Taekwon-Do should be used to bring ‘opponents’ together. “What we need to see is Ukrainian and Russian Taekwon-Do practitioners standing side by side and competing alongside each other as part of one global Taekwon-Do family. This is how, I believe, [martial arts] organizations should affect positive change towards peace. [Martial arts] organizations should create opportunities for Ukrainian and Russian [martial art] practitioners to shake hands with each other in friendship, to bow to each other in respect, and maybe even to hug each other in [martial arts] fraternity. Getting Russians and Ukrainians (and the rest of the world) to see each other’s common humanity should be the goal. Sharing photos of such moments of friendship and mutual respect between supposed enemies should be the publicity [martial arts] organizations ought to strive for—not virtue signalling through calls of bans, othering, and separation” (Lewis, 2022).

 

There are also other ways—more personal or ‘intrapersonal’ ways—that the martial arts may contribute to peace, by forging less violent, more peaceful people. This is effectively summarized by Janet O’Shea, in her book Risk, Failure, Play: What Dance Reveals About Martial Arts Training:

“A relationship between vulnerability and accountability explains the central paradox of martial arts training: that knowing how to fight can make you less likely to fight. Part of this paradox lies in confidence: those who know how to fight are less likely to be targeted, and thus are less likely to need their fight skills. Those who fight recreationally or competitively don’t need to put themselves into violent situations to test their knowledge; they have ample opportunity to experiment in consensual circumstances. In addition, however, fight training forms a powerful reminder of vulnerability. Fight sports teach us that anyone can lose a fight and anyone can win one, they show us that strikes hurt regardless of who they come from; and they signal that fundamental limitations unite us more than differences of shape, size, gender, and age separate us.” (Jane O’Shea, 2019:71.)

There is a curious phenomenon we notice with martial artists; they seem to be more affectionate to each other after a fight. This is strange because one would expect opponents to be more antagonistic, yet the opposite seems to be the case. Usually, after the fight, the behaviours of the opponents are those of friends rather than enemies. Think how often you have seen fighters—such as boxers, wrestlers, and MMA-fighters—hug each other after a fight. In an article recently published by UNESCO-ICM, Caio Amaral Gabriel explores the science behind this phenomenon. He points to a study by Rassovsky et al. from 2019 that shows that sparring increases oxytocin, the hormone associated with social bonding and cooperative behaviour. While more research is needed to determine how we can use this phenomenon for creating more peace-loving people, it does hint at something observed in several Korean studies that training in Taekwondo tend to reduce aggression and violence in individuals (Song, 1999; Han & Son, 2003; Yang, 2003; Lee 2009). There is also lots of anecdotal evidence that people who take up martial arts become calmer and more self-controlled.

A possible explanation for martial arts’ ability to cause people to become less aggressive and more self-controlled is the way in which it nurtures resilience. Good studies show that sport, and especially traditional martial arts, develops resilience. “Resilience […] refers to an individual’s capacity for adapting to changes and stressful events in a healthy way” (Catalano, et al. 2004). Essentially, resilience is the ability to endure stress. At the most basic level, in martial arts one learns to take a hit, whether it be a punch, kick, or throw—and one learns to do so without becoming emotional. There is a sense in which one becomes somewhat desensitised to the blows—and possibly by extension also to the blows thrown at you by life.

In martial arts training, practitioners are constantly confronted with hindrances: confronted with their own limitations which they must push pass or accept and confronted with opponents. Martial artists learn to reinterpret such confrontations not as unsurmountable obstacles or as dangerous enemies. In martial arts training your present limitations are opportunities for growth and your opponent is not an enemy but a training partner, and even failure has the potential to become a teacher.

Furthermore, in the martial arts gym we learn responsibility and self-control. As Janet O’Shea explains:
“When we spar, we expose ourselves to harm at the hands of our sparring partners. We are continually reminded that what could (theoretically) happen isn’t, in a respectful gym, happening: my training partner could break my arm when he gets me in an arm bar; instead he releases his grip. I could knock her out when I land a punch but instead I control its impact” (O’Shea, 2019:99).

As such, under the guidance of a good instructor and with the right mindset, martial art practise may be a microcosm in which to learn how to negotiate conflict, and hopefully thereby foster more peaceful people.

In the United Nations Art Collection stands a sculpture titled “Let Us Beat Swords into Plowshares.” The sculpture was inspired by a phrase from the Book of Isaiah, in which the prophet had a vision of the future in which he saw people “beat their swords into ploughshares and their spears into pruning hooks”; a future of peace between nations when people will not learn war anymore (Isaiah 2:4). 

I started this talk by saying that I don’t want us to romanticise the martial arts, for ultimately martial arts are the means of war. But, maybe, just maybe we can turn our swords into ploughshares and our spears into pruning hooks and repurpose the martial arts to be means of peace. 

 

References:

Catalano, R. F., Berglund, M. L., Ryan, J. A., Lonczak, H. S., & Hawkins, J. D. (2004). “Positive youth development in the United States: Research findings on evaluations of positive youth development programs.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 591, 98–124.
Gabriel, C. A. (2022). “[Voices of Youth] Fighting for Peace: Grappling and Striking as Potential to Peacebuilding”. UNESCO-ICM.
Han G.G., Sohn S.D. (2003). “Comparison analysis of aggression and attack and sacrifice factors according to Taekwondo training.” Korean Journal of Physical Education, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 905–922 [in Korean.]
Johnson, A. J. & Lewis, S. (2020). “From Individual Heroes to National Performers: The Shift in Taekwondo’s Peace Promotion Activities.” Physical Activity Review, vol. 8(2), pp. 64-71.
Lee K.H. (2009). “Comparative analysis on aggression according to the degree of Taekwondo training for children.” Korean Journal of Physical Education, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 833–842 [in Korean].
Lewis, S. (1996). “Promoting Peace, Practising War: Mohism’s Resolution of the Paradoxical Ethics of War and Self-Defence in East Asian Martial Arts” [unpublished doctoral thesis], Yongin, Korea, Kyunghee University.
Lewis, S. (2022). “Taekwon-Do vis-à-vis the Russian Invasion of Ukraine.” Soo Shim Kwan-blog. https://sooshimkwan.blogspot.com/2022/03/taekwon-do-vis-vis-russian-invasion-of.html
Lewis, S. & Johnson, A. J. (TBD). “Dissonance Issues Incurred with the Use of Taekwondo for Promoting Peace.” Ido Movement for Culture: Journal of Martial Arts Anthropology. (Accepted for publication in 2024, vol. 23.)
Nye, Jr., Joseph S. (2019). “Soft Power and the Public Diplomacy Revisited.” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 14 (April 2019): 1-14.
O’Shea, J. (2019). Risk, Failure, Play: What Dance Reveals About Martial Arts Training. Oxford University Press.
Song C. S. (1999). “The Effects of Taekwondo Exercise on School Violence of Middle School Students”, [unpublished master's thesis], Seoul, Korea, Sogang University Graduate School [in Korean].
Yang K. S. (2003). “Taekwondo Training for Primary School Students, Its Degree and Its Relationship with Aggression” [unpublished master's thesis], Daegu, Korea Keimyung University [in Korean].

 

Quick Notes on Basics and Fundamental Movements

A while ago I was scanning through this blog searching for a post on "Basics", which I was certain I wrote years ago. In my memory the title of the post was something along the lines of "Prototypical Movements". However, to my frustration, I couldn't find the post I was looking for. The closest I got to it was a paragraph written in another post on the value of the patterns. Then I thought, maybe I had written the essay, but possibly forgot to post it, so I searched for it in my old Taekwon-Do folders, but that search came up empty as well, except for a short passage in a draft document in which I discuss Taekwon-Do's pedagogy. It is a pity that I can't find the text I thought I had written; it might be that it was completely conceptual and I just never got round to writing it. The gist of the idea is that there exists a category of movements that are more foundational than the Fundamental Movements, and time spend on trying to distill and understand these "basics" are of immense value. I decided to post the excerpt from the aforementioned draft below:

Notes on Basics and Fundamental Movements

 

Fundamental movements are the vocabulary of Taekwon-Do. Each fundamental movement is a specific identifiable technique using a specific stance and specific (attacking or blocking) tool aimed at a specific target on the opponent and which can usually be found described or alluded to in the ITF Encyclopedia. These individual techniques should first be taught by a qualified instructor. Thereafter, the practitioner can easily practise these movements by themselves. There is no question as to their importance and even grand masters will often go back and practice specific fundamental movements. 

There are supposedly over three thousand individual fundamental movements in Taekwon-Do. A common error people make is to try to accumulate techniques…trying to learn each of these hundreds of movements. This is not a good approach. A much better approach is to practice the basics and grasp the underlying principles. 

I differentiate here between fundamental movements and basics (basic motions), which are the gross motor movements that fundamental movements share. If fundamental movements are the vocabulary, the words, of Taekwon-Do, then basic motions are the phonics, i.e., the sounds used to make those words. Put differently, basics are the building blocks of fundamental movements, and many fundamental movements use nearly the same basic motions. There are far fewer basic motions, and one is exposed to all the important basics very early on, probably within the first few colour belt patterns. To excel in Taekwon-Do, it is better to identify and perfect the basics (gross motor movements), rather than try to amass all the individual fundamental movements.

I will give a few examples. First, each stance should be considered a basic and transitioning between stances are basics as well. Next, the shared gross motor movements used in techniques are what constitute most of the basics. For instance, the pulling-hand that is brought to the hip with nearly every punch or thrust is such a basic. The difference between a walking stance high or middle front fore fist punch, a long fist punch, an open fist punch, a flat-fingertip thrust, a twin-fingertip thrust, and an arc-hand thrust is almost entirely based on changing the unformed hand into a different attacking tool moments before impact: the overall gross motor movement is almost exactly the same for all these punches and thrusts. Similarly, the outer-forearm outward blocks (irrespective if they are high, middle, or low), the knife-hand blocks, and even knife-hand side strikes share another basic motion—the arm is brought across the body with the palm facing somewhat up, and then moved towards the outer edge of the body while the arm rotates so that the palm faces the other way. Rather than learning these fundamental movements as individual techniques, it is better to ingrain the gross motor movement of the arm and body and only learning to adjust the end positions appropriately. You will also notice that many fundamental movements are simply a basic movement (gross motor movement) stopped somewhere else along a trajectory. For instance, a middle vertical punch is simply a regular middle punch that stopped short of its target; a knife-hand block is a knife-hand strike before full extension; a knee kick, such as a front or turning knee kick, is a regular kick without the final snap of the lower leg. 

In short, there are few gross motor movements to master, and each fundamental movement requires only slight tweaks to differentiate between them. I don’t mean to suggest that you do not need to practice fundamental movements; however, focusing on mastering the basics—the gross motor movements—will bare much more and faster results as the principles in one basic motion are directly applicable to all the different fundamental movements that share that basic motion.  

Fundamental movements are often trained on the spot or as line drills while stepping, sliding, dodging, or jumping forwards or backwards. This is appropriate, although I would also add side-steps, and diagonal movements as part of such drills. Furthermore, once a fundamental movement is understood and done with relative mastery, it is much more useful to practice combinations of fundamental movements, rather than one fundamental movement at a time. It is good to practise combinations of fundamental movements that seem to fit logically together and have a sensible flow. The Korean term for such sequences is pum 품, which are the sequences of movements that make up the patterns. It is very important to practice the pum from a pattern before practicing the pattern in its entirety. 

(Occasionally instructors may also combine sequences that are unnecessarily difficult, i.e., that do not have a natural flow to them. This challenges both body and mind and few things encourage learning than struggling to figure out a complex problem.)

While line drills and pum-practice for lower ranks are trained according to movement principles associated with “traditional” movement, higher ranking practitioners can transcend such formalized training and move in a “freer” manner, with stances and rhythms that are less fixed—by practicing the combinations as if they are doing free sparring. In other words, the drills are more akin to “shadowboxing”. This does not mean that the formal stances and rhythms are thrown out the window. Instead, traditional stances and rhythms are moved in and out of dynamically, rather performed in a fixated “traditional” manner.
 

7th International Martial Arts Studies Conference: "The Evolotion of Taekwondo's Body Culture"

I recently presented a paper titled “The Evolution of Taekwondo’s Body Culture” at the 7th international Martial Arts Studies Conference: Martial Arts, Tradition and Globalization, which was hosted by the Universities of Lausanne and Geneva (Switzerland), from 29 June to 2 July 2022.

I was really hoping to attend the conference in person, but due to visa delays was not able to go to Switzerland in time for the conference. However, the hosts made it possible for me to still participate in the conference online. I was part of Panel 6.2 Body Cultures and shared the podium with fellow ethnographers Ai-Cheng Ho and Martin Minarik.

I’m not sure if the presentations were recorded and whether they will be made available online. If so, I will post the link to the video as soon as I get it. If not, I will possibly record my presentation when I have time and make it available here.

Below is the abstract of my presentation:

 

The Evolution of Taekwondo’s Body Culture

Sanko Lewis, PhD.

 “Taekwondo” is an umbrella term for some Korean martial arts with roots in Japanese karate. Early taekwondo followed a Japanese body culture and was almost indistinguishable from karate. However, this “Korean karate” moved away from its Japanese roots. By the late 1970s and early 1980s these styles of taekwondo had evolved into undeniably Korean martial arts that adhere to certain kinetic characteristics found in Korean traditional body culture. Recent changes in modern sparring rules and the inclusion of popular music (K-pop music based on hip-hop rhythms) and urban dance is causing further changes in taekwondo’s “traditional” body culture. It can be argued that taekwondo is a dynamic and evolving martial art that is staying in step with a contemporary, globalized Korean body culture as expressed in K-pop music and K-dance. However, the result is also a loss of “traditional” taekwondo technique and aesthetic. 

My presentation built on my previous research on Korean body culture and combined it with research by Drs. Udo Moenig, Steven Capener, and Herb Perez who have written critically about the recent changes in WT-style taekwondo. 

Taekwon-Do vis-à-vis the Russian Invasion of Ukraine

 

Russian and Ukrainian "brothers in Taekwon-Do"
sitting beside each other at a Taekwon-Do championships.
(Reposted from Facebook. Original source unknown.)

Taekwon-Do vis-à-vis the Russian Invasion of Ukraine

Dr. Sanko Lewis

 

I’ve been seeing lots of posts on Facebook from the international Taekwon-Do community and specifically from the ITF Taekwon-Do community calling to ban Russian Taekwon-Do athletes from competing at international ITF Taekwon-Do events because of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. In this post I want to outline why I disagree with this. However, before anybody accuse me of being pro-Russia or anti-Ukraine, let me make it clear: I am against the invasion of Ukraine by Russia and am against this war. A substantial part of my PhD dissertation[1] was about Ethics of War. There is much one can write about that topic but suffice it to say that I resonate with the Taoists on this topic—all wars are tragedies, all wars are lamentable.[2]

 

To return to the main topic of this essay, I do not agree with the banning of Russian Taekwon-Doin from international Taekwon-Do events.

 

First, Taekwon-Do has a history of being used for peace building and soft power diplomacy, by bringing together otherwise apathetic and even antagonistic groups under the banner of Taekwon-Do.[3] Soft power diplomacy uses non-coercive methods such as cultural exchange, sport events, positive media exposure, and so on, to affect positive relations through appeal and attraction. The first soft power diplomacy that Taekwon-Do was engaged in was already in 1959, when Choi Hong Hi, a general in the Republic of Korea (South Korea) military took a Taekwon-Do demonstration team on what was called a “Goodwill Tour”. Many of Taekwon-Do’s most famous grandmasters such as Nam Tae Hi, Kim Bok Man, Han Cha Kyo, and so on were part of that first international trip to Vietnam and Taiwan. Another Goodwill Tour in 1965 travelled to West Germany, Italy, Egypt, Turkey, Malaysia, and Singapore. In 1973, the ITF Demonstration Team toured 23 countries, including Eastern Bloc countries such as Poland, Hungary, and Yugoslavia. Such tours not only put South Korea in a positive light abroad, but it also helped to “bridge gaps between political ideologies”[4]. It was with this attitude that General Choi introduced Taekwon-Do to his former enemies: Japan (the former colonizers of Korea) and North Korea (whom he fought against during the Korean War). In fact, one of Choi’s proudest moments were the first time he saw Japanese Taekwon-Do athletes competing with Korean Taekwon-Do athletes at a Taekwon-Do World Championship. Furthermore, it was his lifelong dream that North and South Korea would reunify and that Taekwon-Do may play a part in that. Taekwon-Do has now been affective in bringing South and North Korea together on several significant occasions.

 

Rather than use Taekwon-Do to drive people apart, I think Taekwon-Do should be used to bring ‘opponents’ together. The most famous use of sport diplomacy (which is a form of soft power diplomacy) was in 1971, affectionately referred to as ‘Ping-pong diplomacy’, when table tennis was used to bring the antagonistic Unites States of America and People’s Republic of China together. This event paved the way for President Nixon to visit Beijing in 1972. Similarly, very high tensions between North and South Korea and North Korean and the United States were eased through Taekwon-Do diplomacy, when North Korean and South Korean Taekwon-Do demonstration teams came together to share the same stage during the 2018 PyeongChang Winter Olympic Games. These shared Taekwon-Do activities by North and South Koreans led to summits between North Korean leader Kim Jung Un and South Korean president Moon Jae In, and it is believed that this is what later led to the summits between Pyeongyang and Washington.

 

What we need to see is Ukrainian and Russian Taekwon-Do practitioners standing side by side and competing alongside each other as part of one global Taekwon-Do family. This is how, I believe, Taekwon-Do organizations should affect positive change towards peace. Taekwon-Do organizations should create opportunities for Ukrainian and Russian Taekwon-Do practitioners to shake hands with each other in friendship, to bow to each other in respect, and maybe even to hug each other in Taekwon-Do fraternity. Getting Russians and Ukrainians (and the rest of the world) to see each other’s common humanity should be the goal. Sharing photos of such moments of friendship and mutual respect between supposed enemies should be the publicity Taekwon-Do organizations should strive for—not virtue signaling through calls of bans, othering, and separation.   

 

Second, we ought to be very clear what we hope to achieve with sanctions. The idea that sanctions against Russian Taekwon-Do athletes will send some type of message to Vladimir Putin is, frankly, silly. Broad sanctions against groups of people—in an effort to somehow punish their leaders or in a hope that it would result in an internal overthrow of the government—are not particularly effective. For example, the USA has had sanctions against Cuba and North Korea for decades. This has done practically nothing to change the status quo in those countries. Rather, it just hurt the average Cuban and North Korean, and especially the poorest and weakest among them, while the elites continue to live in relative comfort while remaining in positions of power. Unless the sanctions are specific in nature, to target particular individuals and systems, they do not generally result in change. By banning all Russian Taekwon-Do athletes we are indirectly signaling that all Russians are evil, and not affecting the power structure. Rather, I am in support of World Taekwondo for stripping President Putin of the honorary black belt they bestowed upon him in 2013[5]; and the protests calling for Yongin University (South Korea) to recall the Honorary Doctorate Degree in Judo Studies that they bestowed upon Putin in 2010[6]. These are focused signals of disapproval against the guilty, without scapegoating a whole nation.

 

Third, I think it is hypocritical of the international ITF community to discriminate against Russia, but not against other aggressive or oppressive countries. Consider, for instance, the invasions and attacks by foreign forces of Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Pakistan, Algeria, Mali, Senegal, Tunisia, Kyrgyzstan, and the list goes on. The United States of America, the United Kingdom, and several other Western countries, as well as the United Arab Emirates, have attacked or invaded the list of countries above over the last several decades. To this day, there are still American and other forces in places like Iraq and Yemen. It is a well-established fact that the war on Iraq (that began under the Bush administration) was not a justifiable invasion[7], but based on the lie of “weapons of mass destruction” and was more likely motivated by wanting an access to Iraqi resources. Invading forces in Yemen include Saudi Arabia and the United States (which started under the Obama administration). The current famine in Yemen, which is directly related to the wars in the country, is considered the worse famine in the world in the last century[8]. Yet, the international Taekwon-Do community is not calling for the ban on Taekwon-Do athletes from the United States, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, or any other Western country involved in such foreign invasions. Similarly, it generally accepted by the international community that the Chinese government is violating the human rights of the Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims in the Xinjiang regions[9]—not to mention China’s oppression of freedoms in Tibet and Hong Kong. Yet, the international Taekwon-Do community is not calling for the ban of Taekwon-Do athletes from China. Without consistency, banning members from one aggressive country but not another is hypocritical and void of integrity (a supposed fundamental tenet in Taekwon-Do).

 

My hope that Taekwon-Do may be used to create spaces that are welcoming to anyone “regardless of religion, race or ideology” may be naïve. Still, it is this “Philosophy of Taekwon-Do”[10] that I am advocating. If Taekwon-Do is to be used politically, let it be in peace building efforts that create unity, not separation. Let Taekwon-Do transcend the “Us vs. Them”-narrative, and instead let Taekwon-Do frame a space for the pursuit of peace—an extended “Do-Jang”—where Ukrainian, Russian, and other Taekwon-Doin from around the world can come together as a “We” around our common goals to be champions of “freedom and justice” and to “build a more peaceful world.”[11]

---

[1] Lewis, S. 2016. Promoting Peace, Practising War: Mohism’s Resolution of the Paradoxical Ethics of War and Self-Defence in East Asian Martial Arts. (PhD Thesis. Department of Sport & Taekwondo, Graduate School of Physical Education of Kyunghee University, Korea.)

[2] Lao Tzu, Daodejing, Chapter 31: “There is no glory in victory [ . . . ] When victorious in war, one should observe the rites of mourning.” (Lau, D. C., trans. (1963). Lao Tzu: Tao Te Ching. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.)

[3] Johnson, J. A. & Vitale, G. 2018. “Taekwondo Diplomacy: New Possibilities for Peace on the Korean Peninsula.” Physical Activity Review, 6: 237-250.

[4] Vitale, G. 2022. “A History of TaeKwon-Do Demo’s.” Totally Tae Kwon Do. Republished March 2022. (Originally published July 2009.)

[5] “World Taekwondo revokes Putin’s honorary black belt over Ukraine.” Korea Times. 1 March 2022. URL: https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/sports/2022/03/600_324757.html

[6] “Calls grow for revocation of Putin’s honorary degree at Yong In University.” The Korea Herald. 27 February 2022. URL: http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20220227000199

[7] Fisher, D & Biggar, N. 2011. “Was Iraq an unjust war? A debate on the Iraq war and reflections on Libya.” International Affairs, 87(3): 687-707.

[8] “Yemen could be ‘worst famine in 100 years’”. BBC. 15 October 2018. URL: https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-middle-east-45857729

[9] “China: ongoing Human rights violations against Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims in Xinjiang.” International Federation for Human Rights. 28 June 2021. URL: https://www.fidh.org/en/region/asia/china/china-ongoing-human-rights-violations-against-uyghurs-and-other

[10] Choi, H. H. “Philosophy of Taekwon-Do.” ITF Taekwon-Do Encyclopedia. Vol. 1.

[11] Choi, H. H. “Oath of Taekwon-Do.” ITF Taekwon-Do Encyclopedia. Vol. 1.

The Tenet of ‘Courtesy’ in Taekwon-Do

Calligraphy by Choi Hong-Hi
of the Tenets of Taekwon-Do

 

General Choi Hong-hi, the founder of ITF Taekwon-Do, composed a list of five tenets that he required practitioners to recite and embody. The tenets, as they are translated into English, are courtesy [예의], integrity [염치], perseverance [인내], self-control [극기], and an indomitable spirit [백절 불굴]. As I pointed out in a previous essay, with some of these terms, there is something lost in translation. This is also the case for the first tenet, “courtesy”.

 

In English, the word “courtesy” suggests polite and respectful behaviour with proper etiquette, which is close to the translations one would get if you search the equivalent Korean word [예의] in a Korean-English dictionary: manners, etiquette, courtesy, politeness, proprieties, decorum, and civility.

 

While this may be a general understanding of the term, the Korean word “ye-eui” has a deeper connotation which one may glimpse when you look at the hanja (Chinese characters) on which the word is based. The hanja for “ye-eui” [예의] is 禮儀. The first character [禮] can translate to manners (decent and respectable behaviour) or ritual propriety (proper actions during rites and ritual ceremonies), while the second character roughly translates to proper etiquette, but can also translate as righteous or lawful behaviour. What I want to point out here is that the Korean term “ye-eui” [예의] has a much more demanding implication than the English word “courtesy”. Courteous behaviour may simply be good manners and one’s adherence or disregard of them does not really have any serious consequences. Whereas the Korean term implies the righteousness or lawfulness of one’s conduct. 

 

Confucius was a Chinese sage-philosopher
whose teachings greatly affected East Asia.
There are still many aspects of Confucianism
that are part of modern Korean culture.

 

Confucianism is fundamental to Korean culture and central to Confucianism is the concept of li (‘ritual propriety’ or ‘sense-of-ritual’). Li covers a wide range of conduct and behaviour from religious rites to state and governmental rituals, to social ceremonies such as at weddings and funerals, to appropriate etiquette for social relations. In other words, it covers every aspect of one’s life: in religious matters, with regards to the State, in society at large, within families, and among all relationships. It is both the adherence to state laws and the respect one shows to one’s parents and elders, including the good manners when interacting with people in daily life, even such seeming trivialities as drinking etiquette and table manners.

Confucianism (cf. Mencius) believes that we have the seeds of li innately inside us, but that a ‘sense-of-ritual’ should be learned and developed. The idea of “ritual” here should be understood more broadly to include all appropriate behaviours: manners, etiquette, lawful deeds and righteous conduct. Furthermore, notice the concept “sense-of-ritual”: it is not merely about adhering to codes and rules of conduct; rather, there should be an internal sense of appropriate behaviour. Thus, “sense-of-ritual” refers to a developed moral sensibility.

The Confucian ideal is to be a junzi [君子], often translated as “a gentleman” or “superior person.” (The Korean equivalent is a gunja [군자], a person of virtue and culture.) When Confucius’ greatest disciple Yan Hui asked his Master about perfect virtue (ren 仁), Confucius answered: “Don’t look in a way that is not li, don’t listen in a way that is not li, don’t speak in a way that is not li, and don’t move in a way that is not li.” It would be incorrect to conclude that it is all about outward behaviours—how one ought to or ought not to behave. Confucius’ answer was in regard to his student’s question about virtue. Virtue is more than just an outward display; in a righteous person, virtues have become internalized. Confucian scholars like Mencius considered li a virtue alongside other virtues such as benevolence, filial piety, and sincerity. To another student Confucius answered: “Let your words be sincere and truthful and your actions honorable and careful.”  

 

Bowing before training is one
part of showing courtesy.

 

To bring it back to our original discussion of Taekwon-Do’s tenet of courtesy, the Chinese term li is in fact the same first character in the word “ye-eui” [예의, 禮儀]. Often in Taekwon-Do we understand “courtesy” simply as the respectful behaviours in the dojang such as taking our shoes off before stepping onto the mat, or bowing to instructors or to our opponents before sparring; however, as I tried to show here, ‘courtesy’ must be understood in a much broader sense. Like the other tenets, it is not just limited to the confines of the dojang. The courtesy tenet extends to how we treat people in our daily lives—with respect and sincerity—and the way we conduct ourselves in society. It is not merely about behaviour, but rather an attitude (“sense-of-ritual”). It is also culturally sensitive and situationally sensitive, what Koreans call nunchi [눈치], which is the ability to read a social situation and act appropriately. To embody courtesy means that you will conduct yourself in a noble and virtuous manner at all times—like a junzi / gunja, a person of culture and learning.

In an essay I posted on the Soo Shim Kwan-blog in December 2020 I mentioned as a footnote the idea of postmodern martial arts. In the middle of 2021, while on a martial arts podcast about that post, the interviewer asked me about that postmodern martial arts comment. My answer on the podcast was rather sparce because to answer such a question would really require at least a cursory exposition of what Postmodernism is and only then can one attempt to define what a postmodern martial art would look like. Since our time on the interview was already coming to an end, I kept my response brief. However, the postmodern topic again passed by my radar recently when in two of my university classes this past semester I spent a few units on Postmodernism. This made me think about postmodern martial arts again, so I decided now might be a good time to ponder the topic once more—here in writing.  

What is a Postmodern Martial Art?

 by Dr. Sanko Lewis 

Postmodernism

Image Source 
Different modernist worldviews
promised utopias, but delivered
dystopian regimes.

Let me begin with a brief—and very simplified—introduction to Postmodernism. Postmodernism is a Zeitgeist (“spirit of the time”). Zeitgeists are basically a ‘paradigm’ or ‘worldview’ and is detectible in the many ways that it manifests in society, culture, art, and even technology. The postmodern Zeitgeist emerged around the 1960’s out of an earlier Zeitgeist, known as Modernism. The “post-” prefix in Post-modernism does not mean that it appeared after the end of Modernism, but merely that it emerged after the start of Modernism. Aspects of Modernism is still very much active today; nevertheless, Postmodernism has become hugely prevalent in many aspects of society at large. Without going into too much of the history of these Zeitgeists, let’s suffice to say that Modernism promised Utopias but delivered the world wars and the exploitation of natural resources. Against this background of the Holocaust and Hiroshima, a cynicism and scepticism emerged which is at the core of Postmodernism. Put simply, Postmodernism rose in reaction to the ideals and values of Modernism.

Some important postmodern themes are:

• the questioning and doubting of Grand Narratives,
• the breaking-down or crossing of boundaries and borders,
• decentralization and discontinuity,
• and recycling and repurposing.

These themes manifest in many ways. I will discuss the themes and some of their manifestations as they relate to martial arts.

 

Premodern and Modern Martial Arts

However, before we do so, it is important to make a quick distinction between premodern and modern martial arts.

Zhang Sanfeng observing
a fight between a snake
and a bird.

Premodern martial arts are those martial arts that is thought to have developed in “ancient times” and adhere to a premodern worldview; for instance, the believe in an animistic force (such as qi), esoteric tribal (i.e., in-group) knowledge, and techniques inspired by phenomena in the natural world, such as natural cycles and animal behaviour. It is often believed that the martial art and its “secrets” have been handed down in a lineage from master to disciple over hundreds of years and numerous generations. An example of a “traditional” martial art might be Taiji Ch’uan, which adhere to the theory of qi-power, the natural cycles of yin and yang, and the folklore of the Taoist monk Zhang Sanfeng who witnessed a fight between a snake and a crane.  

On the other hand, modern martial arts are based primarily on a modern scientific understanding of motion (Newtonian physics) and the human body (physiology and biomechanics). Techniques are sourced from what “works” (although this is questionable), rather than handed-down secrets. That does not mean that modern martial arts are not transmitted from one generation to the next, but the relationship is one of coach and athlete, rather than traditional master and disciple. Although ITF Taekwon-Do occasionally regresses to premodern customs, as a whole, ITF Taekwon-Do is a modern martial art that was deliberately modernized by its founder. There are no secrets only available to the insiders; credibility through lineages has been replaced by certificates from an international governing body; magic energy made way for Newtonian physics, and poetic animalistic moves became standardized biomechanical techniques.  

Both traditional martial arts and modern martial arts place their faith in their chosen Grand Narratives. The term “Grand Narrative” refers to a “big story”, i.e., a standard explanation, for how things work. The Grand Narrative in premodern martial arts is the lineage and the inherited tribal wisdom and associated philosopy. The ancestral line is the centre of the system and what legitimizes the practitioner’s knowledge and skill. In the case of modern martial arts, the Grand Narrative is often some form of technical manifesto which is legitimized by a governing body. For example, ITF Taekwon-Do has a technical manifesto known as the “Theory of Power” and the related canonical technical explanations which provides a “scientific model” for the system. This is in turn interpreted and supposedly updated by the Technical Committee of the ITF (whether at a local governing body or international governing body level). In theory the Technical Committee is (or ought to be) populated by people that are highly experienced in the system and have relevant qualifications in, for example, physical education, sport science, biomechanics, physiology, physics, etc.

Both premodern and modern martial arts are structured within boundaries. Premodern martial arts function as intangible cultural artifacts—like traditional dances. The cultural context, such as an ethnicity, tribe, village, or family is its boundary; it is what separates it from another martial art systems. For instance, Taiji Ch’uan is a Chinese martial art that can be differentiate into five (literal) family styles: Chen Family Style (i.e., the version of Taiji Ch’uan developed by the Chen family of the Chen Village in Henan province); Yang Style; Wi Style; Sun Style; and Hao Style. Modern martial arts often define their boundary by their specialization, such as being a striking art or a grappling art, a combat sport or military close combat system, and so on. Modern martial arts seldom claim to be “everything.” Both Judo and Boxing are sports, but clearly within their own spheres: the one would not claim to be a striking system nor would the other claim to be grappling system. Although Taekwon-Do may have some throws and ground techniques, it is ultimately a striking art. Similarly, Brazilian Jiu-jitsu may have some techniques from a standing position, but it is on the ground where it comes into its own.

 

Postmodern Martial Arts

With the preceding context we are ready to dive into the notion of postmodern martial arts. I will propose three examples of postmodern martial arts: Hapkido, Jeet Kune Do, and what has become known as mixed martial arts. And I will discuss each of these in relation to the postmodern themes that I outlined earlier.

 

Hapkido

Hapkido is a modern martial art in the sense that it is one of the “modern” systems that developed in the early 20^th century out of a premodern heritage.

Choi Yong Sul, the "founder" of Hapkido

During the Japanese occupation of Korea, a young boy named Choi Yong Sul was taken to Japan. There he became a house servant to Takeda Sōdaku, the founder of Daitō-ryū AIki-jūjutsu. At the end of the occupation, Choi returned to Korea and started teaching what he called, among other names, “Yusul” (the Korean rendition of “jujutsu”). As the system evolved, so did its name, and eventually the name “Hapkido” became most popular. While originally based on a Japanese system, Hapkido has evolved dramatically. From early on, techniques that are foreign to the original Daitō-ryū AIki-jūjutsu, such as an extended arsenal of kicks-and-striking techniques, were incorporated from various local (Korean) and foreign martial arts. Hapkido also developed numerous weapon systems influenced from local and foreign, such as Chinese and Japanese, systems. Hapkido is a discontinuous martial art—a bricolage of techniques repurposed from various systems; i.e., “crossing of boundaries and borders”. Additionally, Hapkido still adhere to aspects of premodern martial arts, such as the concept of qi (known as “gi” in Korean) that features centrally in Hapkido’s technical philosophy and practice. Yet it is also acts like a modern martial art—claiming to be a self-defence system based on a technical manifesto of Newtonian physics and biomechanical principles.

Image Source

At first, Hapkido adhered to a strong lineage starting with Choi Yong Sul, but by implication connected to Takeda Sōdaku and his Japanese system. However, Hapkido quickly reimagined itself as a Korean system, and incorporated not only Korean techniques but also Korean philosophical concepts. The lineage with Choi Yong Sul is still acknowledged but as of today there are over 60 governing bodies in South Korea alone, making it very much a fragmented system. It is not a surprise, then, that the technical syllabi are practically unique from school to school, with little standardization worldwide.

Most Hapkido schools present themselves in the way of premodern martial arts with a long lineage, a particular ethno- and cultural quality (i.e., Korean), a master-disciple pedagogy, and even qi-cultivation techniques. However, these elements are questionable, and may rather be understood from the postmodern theme of “recycling and repurposing.” It is difficult to say to what degree Hapkido is Japanese, rather than Korean, not to mention the incorporation of techniques from other systems such, for example, Sambo (Russian wrestling) and various Chinese styles. The master-disciple pedagogy of tribes and villages is not how Hapkido is taught today—rather, Hapkido schools are mostly often businesses and the students are clients. And it is not quite clear how many instructors actually believe that qi is essential to Hapkido techniques. In many Hapkido schools the idea of qi and even qi exercises such as abdominal breathing exercises, often performed at the beginning or end of a class, seem more to be an addendum than truly part of the system. Techniques are better explained through physics, biomechanics, and physiology rather than Taoist principles.

 

Jeet Kune Do

Jeet Kune Do is the martial philosophy of Bruce Lee.

Apart from martial arts, Bruce Lee 
was also a cha cha dance champion.
Image Source

Lee’s family was involved in Cantonese opera, which includes various disciplines ranging from acting to singing to martial arts. Hence, Lee was exposed to these performing arts and even performed in some rolls as a child. While in school, Lee learned boxing and as a teenager he started learning Wing Chung Kung Fu under a grandmaster of the style Yip Man, who claimed to be part of the direct lineage to the Yim Wing-chun after whom the style was named. Lee also added the Cuban dance cha-cha-cha to his extracurricular activities. Lee relocated to the United States where he started to teach martial arts—basically his version of Wing Chun, but here Lee would be exposed to various other martial arts. For instance, Lee learned Taekwon-Do kicks from Grandmaster Jhoon Rhee (father of Taekwon-Do in the USA).

In 1964 Lee had a fight with a Chinese martial artist, Wong Jack-man, in Oakland, California. According to Lee the reason for the dual was because he was teaching martial arts to “outsiders” (i.e., Americans), which was not allowed by the Chinese community. Although Lee claimed to have won the fight, he was disappointed with his performance and concluded that his traditional martial art skillset was too formalized and, hence, limiting. This led to a journey of abandoning tradition for what he called a “style of no style.” His goal was not to create yet another system of fixed techniques, but rather a “philosophy” that embraced the idea of “using no way as way”; i.e., not being limited to any particular martial system but rather incorporating whatever works from any system, based around a number of technical and strategic principles such as efficacy and interception.

Bruce Lee learned Taekwon-Do kicks from Jhoon Rhee

This exemplifies the postmodern questioning of Grand Narratives. Lee questioned both tradition and lineage (“discontinuity”) and started to research and incorporate other martial arts into his system, including those of European origin such as European fencing and savate (a French martial art). Thus, Lee manifested another postmodern theme: “the breaking-down or crossing of boundaries and borders,” which he was also doing, according to his account, by not only learning from other cultural systems but also teaching “outsiders”. Sourcing from different martial arts also exemplifies the postmodern theme of “recycling and repurposing.” Bruce Lee was clearly a postmodernist, and his methodology was one of deconstruction. Lee named his approach Jeet Kune Do.

Today, many people who practise “Jeet Kune Do” are not doing it as a postmodern philosophy. Rather, they have reverted to premodern martial arts notions of lineage and other fixed training methodologies. Nevertheless, there are still people who follows Lee’s postmodern “way of no way”.

 

Mixed Martial Arts (aka Hybrid Martial Arts)

As the name suggest, mixed martial arts are literally the result of sourcing skills from different martial arts to form a hybrid or eclectic system. In other words, it is the individualized practice of mixing techniques together, often to create a personalized “rounded” skillset that can defend at different spheres of engagement: striking, clinch, and ground. One might combine Boxing, Taekwondo, and Judo; or Muay Thai and Brazilian Jiujitsu; or any other combination.

Image Source

This mixing of styles from different systems and even different cultures is a manifestation of the “crossing of boundaries” theme in Postmodernism. Furthermore, as there is no respect for an actual ancestral lineage nor a true governing body, mixed martial arts is essentially decentralized. Practitioners can jump from one school or system to another at whim as soon as they have “collected” a skill or technique that they wish to add to their skillset collage. Mixed martial arts training is discontinuous in nature—this doesn’t mean that the practitioner is not continually training, but simply that they are not necessarily loyal to a continuous lineage as is the case with premodern martial arts or the dedicated specialization in modern martial arts. There is a scepticism in mixed martial arts that questions the validity of traditional (i.e., premodern) martial arts as well as the myopic focus of the modern martial arts, but when valuable techniques or skills are identified, they are dislodged from their original context and repurposed to the new non-traditional context.

A sport known as “Mixed Martial Arts” (MMA), epitomized by the UFC (Ultimate Fighting Championship), has emerged. This sport is in many ways similar to modern martial art combat sports—it is nevertheless postmodern in its mixing of a serious sport with the pomp and pageantry of the entertainment industry.

 

Embracing a Positive Postmodernism

I’m certain, that many martial artists would feel offended if I were to say that their practise is postmodern or even that they could benefit from being more postmodern in their training. For many people, Postmodernism has become a swear word, often associated with Relativism and Nihilism; hence they associate anything “postmodern” with meaninglessness. Unfortunately, this is due to a common misunderstanding and inadequate understanding of Postmodernism. It is not the case that Postmodernism is anti-truth, as is often claimed. Postmodernism’s protest of Grand Narratives does not mean that there is no truth, but rather that reality is too multifaceted to be explained by a singular framework (i.e., one Grand Narrative).

The parable of "The Blind and the Elephant"
exemplifies the postmodern understanding of truth
that is approximated through different points-of-view.
Image Source

A postmodern pursuit of knowledge is one that allows for many points-of-view. In martial arts terms we may call it “cross-training.” It is the realization that there is no ultimate martial art, but rather that we can learn from many martial arts. And in fact, it is such an ability to view the world from different points of view that brings us closer to reality. As such, simple “cross-training” is not enough. For instance, mixed martial arts are postmodern in their cross-training, but they are often spiritually superficial, as they still tend to cling to singular goals, such as a modernist ideal of winning at all cost. Mixed martial artist could benefit from expanding their “cross-training” to other “spiritual” disciplines such as finding ways to include a “spiritual discipline” or “moral culture” or even meditation in their training so that they don’t just train how to fight, but also pursue becoming better human beings (goals often pursued  within premodern martial arts). It is here then where I want to connect this essay with the essay which I wrote just over a year ago on “Pre-Rational, Rational, Trans-RationalViews of Martial Arts”.

It is my conviction that there is value in becoming transmodern martial artists that incorporate the best of both premodern and modern martial arts paradigms and develop systems that are truly beneficial at various levels. I believe that one can do this within existing systems or individually within one’s personal martial arts journey. It requires, however, honesty, humility, and open-mindedness. Honesty to admit what doesn’t work within your system; humility to learn from other people and other sources; and open-mindedness to explore the unfamiliar.

I do make a distinction between simply a postmodern martial artist and a trans-modern martial artist. The former can easily become haphazardly fragmentary, without any over arching cohesion. Or, simply busy with deconstruction* without reconstruction. However, if the postmodern journey is a positive one, where the deconstruction is also generative, then it may be of the trans-modern sort: a creative journey of development that synergistically brings together principles and ideas across various styles and disciplines to create something deeper and richer.

*Deconstruction is a postmodern methodology for analyzing the underlining assumptions and contradictions within a system.