I was inspired to write this over-long post by the How to become a survival instructor thread, but I didn't want to hijack bushcraftsman's thread, especially as I have a verbosity problem! ;-)
My own interest in Bushcraft is still at a very basic stage, but in idle moments I've day-dreamed, like most people, about the possible end result of it all years down the line.
I wonder if it could be analogous to what happens in the world of Martial Arts? Let's get hypothetical for a moment and say that, for the purposes of comparison, it's possible to earn a black belt in bushcraft!
This would cover all the basics such as emergency survival, camping skills, fire lighting, food gathering and what have you. The stuff you need for subsisting for a few days up to a few weeks rather than the harder core skills which enable you to live comfortably almost indefinitely (which, as you'll already be thinking, are mostly just being better and having more practise at the basics I've listed above!)
In the world of MA there are two broad categories into which many clubs could be placed:
1. Strict, using a defined syllabus, hierarchical, often "pure", often political
2. Syllabus used as a guide rather than a rule, flexible, broad-based, open-minded
In Type 1, pure refers to those groups who won't tolerate any technique, application or method drawn from beyond the established boundaries of their art. They seek to standardise and often get into pedantic (political) arguments with similar clubs over what is and isn't part of their subject. This contrasts with Type 2 where anything goes so long as you can prove that it works.
Obviously, this is a horrible generalisation, but necessary for this example.
As you work your way up the ladder in many Type 1 clubs, you are assumed to possess total competence in the body of knowledge defined by your grade. Thus, when you reach black belt, you're automatically considered capable of instructing others and if you adhere to the strict, pre-defined syllabus, you are. The only variable is your personal aptitude for teaching.
This is like it used to be with University degrees. Achievement of a good undergrad degree didn't make you an academic, but you were considered competent to teach your subject at high school or sixth form college - then they got anal about it and brought in all these complicated teaching qualifications which they keep changing every couple of years... but I digress.
Adhering to a strict syllabus, and training students to pass their grading exams according to that syllabus, is a great way of mass producing basically competent black belts... or university graduates, for that matter! But there is something lacking in this approach which can be found in the Type 2 category.
In Type 2, achieving a black belt doesn't mean that your club is going to let you loose on its students! Now, this may cause some disagreement, but it seems that in order to teach effectively up to level 1, a good teacher is usually qualified up to level 2 or 3. Same goes for black belt instructors and university lecturers. I've met black belts from the Type 1 clubs who know all the moves but don't always know how to use them! The move is in the form/kata that they studied, and they know it backwards and can teach it, but ask them to demonstrate an application of the move outside the context of the form and some of them struggle. This points to a lack of depth in their knowledge, a lack of understanding of the broader context.
Type 2 clubs usually view this deeper understanding as a pre-requisite for a good instructor. How do you gain this? By staying on and continuing to train as a black belt, not only with your own organisation, but with many others as well. In a sense, your black belt is merely the end of your formal education and the beginning of your apprenticeship, at the end of which you might become an instructor and start charging students for your time!
I'm currently studying a style of Kung Fu and our club has quite a few black belts, only a handful of which are instructing, and some of the instructors are still senior students who have yet to take their black belt exam. Having some experience of the more rigid approach described earlier, I can say I prefer this other approach.
To drag myself back on topic, after having day dreamed about instructing, I also looked at various websites and biography pages myself. I concluded that trying to plan such a career is pointless. This is partly because there is no governing body in Bushcraft. A governing body would publish a set of standard skills and recognised qualifications and possibly set up an exam board. This would make career planning much easier, but there's a downside. If Bushcraft had a governing body, it would be in danger of falling into the Type 1 category.
Bushcraft as it is contains a plethora of different points of view; different solutions to the same problems; different backgrounds from which it draws it's foremost experts. This diversity enriches the subject. So, while there are training courses, there are a lot of different training courses run by different people. They're all comparable up to a point, which is the hypothetical "bushcraft black belt" status, but beyond that, they have all done different apprenticeships in their art and because of this, I think Bushcraft as it currently exists is closer to the Type 2 category.
And, my humble opinion, despite the drawback for wannabe instructors, I think Bushcraft is better off for it!
My own interest in Bushcraft is still at a very basic stage, but in idle moments I've day-dreamed, like most people, about the possible end result of it all years down the line.
I wonder if it could be analogous to what happens in the world of Martial Arts? Let's get hypothetical for a moment and say that, for the purposes of comparison, it's possible to earn a black belt in bushcraft!
This would cover all the basics such as emergency survival, camping skills, fire lighting, food gathering and what have you. The stuff you need for subsisting for a few days up to a few weeks rather than the harder core skills which enable you to live comfortably almost indefinitely (which, as you'll already be thinking, are mostly just being better and having more practise at the basics I've listed above!) In the world of MA there are two broad categories into which many clubs could be placed:
1. Strict, using a defined syllabus, hierarchical, often "pure", often political
2. Syllabus used as a guide rather than a rule, flexible, broad-based, open-minded
In Type 1, pure refers to those groups who won't tolerate any technique, application or method drawn from beyond the established boundaries of their art. They seek to standardise and often get into pedantic (political) arguments with similar clubs over what is and isn't part of their subject. This contrasts with Type 2 where anything goes so long as you can prove that it works.
Obviously, this is a horrible generalisation, but necessary for this example.
As you work your way up the ladder in many Type 1 clubs, you are assumed to possess total competence in the body of knowledge defined by your grade. Thus, when you reach black belt, you're automatically considered capable of instructing others and if you adhere to the strict, pre-defined syllabus, you are. The only variable is your personal aptitude for teaching.
This is like it used to be with University degrees. Achievement of a good undergrad degree didn't make you an academic, but you were considered competent to teach your subject at high school or sixth form college - then they got anal about it and brought in all these complicated teaching qualifications which they keep changing every couple of years... but I digress.
Adhering to a strict syllabus, and training students to pass their grading exams according to that syllabus, is a great way of mass producing basically competent black belts... or university graduates, for that matter! But there is something lacking in this approach which can be found in the Type 2 category.
In Type 2, achieving a black belt doesn't mean that your club is going to let you loose on its students! Now, this may cause some disagreement, but it seems that in order to teach effectively up to level 1, a good teacher is usually qualified up to level 2 or 3. Same goes for black belt instructors and university lecturers. I've met black belts from the Type 1 clubs who know all the moves but don't always know how to use them! The move is in the form/kata that they studied, and they know it backwards and can teach it, but ask them to demonstrate an application of the move outside the context of the form and some of them struggle. This points to a lack of depth in their knowledge, a lack of understanding of the broader context.
Type 2 clubs usually view this deeper understanding as a pre-requisite for a good instructor. How do you gain this? By staying on and continuing to train as a black belt, not only with your own organisation, but with many others as well. In a sense, your black belt is merely the end of your formal education and the beginning of your apprenticeship, at the end of which you might become an instructor and start charging students for your time!
I'm currently studying a style of Kung Fu and our club has quite a few black belts, only a handful of which are instructing, and some of the instructors are still senior students who have yet to take their black belt exam. Having some experience of the more rigid approach described earlier, I can say I prefer this other approach.
To drag myself back on topic, after having day dreamed about instructing, I also looked at various websites and biography pages myself. I concluded that trying to plan such a career is pointless. This is partly because there is no governing body in Bushcraft. A governing body would publish a set of standard skills and recognised qualifications and possibly set up an exam board. This would make career planning much easier, but there's a downside. If Bushcraft had a governing body, it would be in danger of falling into the Type 1 category.
Bushcraft as it is contains a plethora of different points of view; different solutions to the same problems; different backgrounds from which it draws it's foremost experts. This diversity enriches the subject. So, while there are training courses, there are a lot of different training courses run by different people. They're all comparable up to a point, which is the hypothetical "bushcraft black belt" status, but beyond that, they have all done different apprenticeships in their art and because of this, I think Bushcraft as it currently exists is closer to the Type 2 category.
And, my humble opinion, despite the drawback for wannabe instructors, I think Bushcraft is better off for it!
:notworthy 
