I know Asian martial arts has student and master, and junior and senior structure. Be it cultural and centuries old in each art, it confuses me. Why does it have to exist, what was the purpose, and original context? Who is teaching who in martial arts really shouldn't be the Crown Jewel should it?
But students in general don't care that much who is teaching them. Unless, it is a famous teacher or fighter, i.e. a celebrity martial artist or someone really bad at martial arts for the most part in most places in the world.
Why then should it matter to the teacher to have propriety rights over the students? Isn't it about sharing knowledge and passing on that knowledge. I personally, have a loyalty to my instructor because he was my friend. But if he wasn't my friend then there wouldn't be any loyalty what so every.
That parallels any coach, school or university teacher, I ever had. Or anyone else who has instructed or gave me lessons. But in martial arts we create this "family" atmosphere, we have loyalties to instructors, we have instructors fighting over who teaches who. When this happens, students then are torn as a result of the politics of being unfairly put in the middle when teacher conflicts or attitudes arise.
Instructors are not salesmen that are fighting and clawing over each other's clients /students. I am confused because it exists, which I feel is an archaic convention placed out of context. There would be much less issues and politics if there wasn't importance placed upon propriety teaching rights and the stigma of being a teacher.
I am not scolding or admonishing anyone, I just am confused this structure causes so many conflicts why is it still kept?