In my experience, those who teach the martial art of the gun
exhibit several styles of instruction: doctrine, dogma, and
cliché.
'Doctrine' is that core body of concepts/techniques which are (or
should be) taught as a cohesive whole. They are the things for
which an instructor or school becomes known. At their best, those
concepts and techniques reflect reality; they fit together and
support each other. They make sense when thought of as a unit. They
reflect an overriding philosophy of instruction, and should not be
in conflict with that philosophy or each other. Doctrine should be
verifiable, and it should stand scrutiny. It should be open to
question, and be able to answer for itself. Doctrine evolves, it
progresses, as the world around it does.
When doctrine becomes stagnant, or a teacher becomes enamored with
his/her own perceived infallibility, doctrine is replaced with
dogma. Pronouncements are made, not based on reason or experience
or research, but on the strength of the teacher's personality or
reputation. Questions are answered dismissively, in a manner that
reinforces the inferior status of the student. "Best practices" are
replaced by "one true way"; dogma does not evolve, because it is
self-reinforcing. Learning, in the sense of adoption of the dogma,
may happen - but understanding rarely does.
The worst form of instruction occurs when the teacher has neither
doctrine nor dogma. Instead, he relies on cliché: pithy sayings and
one-liners that replace dialogue and reason. The cliché is
delivered in such a manner as to take on a life of its own, as it
has no context. It allows neither questioning nor independent
thought, but rather aims to eliminate both. Its relationship to the
world at large is tenuous at best; it is the perfect embodiment of
the famous quote from Mythbuster's Adam Savage:
Cliché travels far and wide,
because it's easy to remember. People may not understand it, but
they sure can repeat it!
It's rare that an instructor spends all of his time in one style.
He may switch patterns or incorporate elements of another style,
depending on his goal and talent. The doctrinal instructor, for
instance, may use cliché as a memory aid or mnemonic tool to help
his students retain information, while the dogmatic instructor may
use it instead to quash dissent or inquiry that threatens his
authority. Every instructor will have a primary style, though,
reflecting his abilities and grasp of the subject matter.
It's not unusual to find what started as doctrine is presented as
dogma in less capable hands. For instance, an instructor may be a
devotee of a certain school of arms. That school may have the best
doctrinal approach to teaching, but when the student instructor
brings the information back to his students, something is lost in
translation. The instructor may not have understood what he was
being taught, or simply lacks the talent to transmit that
information to others. In either case, he may translate the
doctrine into dogma and present that to his students. Like the
grade-school game of 'telephone', the original intent is
garbled.
That is, unless great care is taken to make sure that the student
instructor truly understands the material, and is held to the same
high standards as the school itself. That's rare in the firearms
field.
You're
reading... The Revolver Liberation
Alliance! The blog about revolvers,
training, self-defense, and shooting in general (along with an
occasional surprise!)