History of Merit Badges is a Cultural History of US

[RememberSchiff]

Interesting read in Smithsonsian Oct, 2018 issue

How the History of Merit Badges Is Also a Cultural History of the United States.

.... if you look more closely at each embroidered round, you’ll discover that the scouts have been anything but static over the last century. The ever-changing roster of Girl Scout and Boy Scout merit badges forms an accidental history of American childhood, a record of what it has meant for girls and boys to “be prepared”—the eternal scouting motto—through two world wars, the Cold War and the War on Terror, through the birth of television, the dawn of the Space Age and the arrival of the internet. Often these boys and girls were our advance scouts: Boys earned a merit badge in automobiling in 1911, when barely one percent of the population owned a car. Girls earned one in Civics in preparation for the vote; it was renamed the Citizen badge with the ratification of the 19th amendment in 1920.

Read more at source link:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/history-merit-badges-cultural-history-united-states-180970306/

Edited November 16, 2018 by RememberSchiff

[qwazse]

A common error is to tally the BSA and GS/USA curricula by categorizing available merit badges.

I figure the PoR's (SPL, PL, QM, etc ...) teach more on running a household/caring for others than related MBs. Factor those in, and that graphic for boys is 1/2 red and purple.

That's on the Boy Scout side. Are there comparable positions on the Cadette and Ambassador side that aren't encapsulated in MBs?

[Treflienne]

19 minutes ago, qwazse said:

That's on the Boy Scout side. Are there comparable positions on the Cadette and Ambassador side that aren't encapsulated in MBs?

Absolutely.  The badges (which girl scouts actually historically have called "proficiency badges" not "merit badges") are only part of the picture.   Currently the emphasis from GSUSA seems to be on the "Journeys" rather than the "badges" and in recent years the badges have been rather a periferal part of the national program materials.  For example the girls must do "journeys" as prerequisites for working on the Bronze, Silver, or Gold award.  No badges are required as prerequisites for these awards.

Nevertheless,  the history of the changes to the badge offerings is quite interesting.   Still I wonder how clearcut the Smithsonian's classifications are.   In older days, a sewing related badge for girls would have fallen squarely into the "running a household" category.   Today needlework tends to be more of a hobby than a household necessity.

[skeptic]

While I really like most of the Smithsonian  articles, this one is lacking any real meat.  And, the comment with the American Heritage badge is clearly, if one knows what has been in requirements for decades, makes it sound as if that was when the history of the country became important to the program.  Of course, that is far from the case with knowledge of the flag history and founding fathers needed for advancement almost from the beginning, and of course , the Civics and the related badges also covered that and still do with Nation especially.  Still,it is an interesting attempt, though as noted, very thin.

 

[HashTagScouts]

28 minutes ago, Treflienne said:

Absolutely.  The badges (which girl scouts actually historically have called "proficiency badges" not "merit badges") are only part of the picture.   Currently the emphasis from GSUSA seems to be on the "Journeys" rather than the "badges" and in recent years the badges have been rather a periferal part of the national program materials.  For example the girls must do "journeys" as prerequisites for working on the Bronze, Silver, or Gold award.  No badges are required as prerequisites for these awards.

Nevertheless,  the history of the changes to the badge offerings is quite interesting.   Still I wonder how clearcut the Smithsonian's classifications are.   In older days, a sewing related badge for girls would have fallen squarely into the "running a household" category.   Today needlework tends to be more of a hobby than a household necessity.

I was a little curious to methodology as well.  I would place Insect Study into science, not outdoor, for example. 

[qwazse]

23 minutes ago, Treflienne said:

...  Currently the emphasis from GSUSA seems to be on the "Journeys" rather than the "badges" and in recent years the badges have been rather a periferal part of the national program materials.  For example the girls must do "journeys" as prerequisites for working on the Bronze, Silver, or Gold award. ..

I've helped a couple of GS's on their "journeys". But, looking at a small sampling from the outside, I'd be hard-pressed to fit them into particular categories.

32 minutes ago, Treflienne said:

..  Still I wonder how clearcut the Smithsonian's classifications are.   In older days, a sewing related badge for girls would have fallen squarely into the "running a household" category.   Today needlework tends to be more of a hobby than a household necessity. 

Categorizing MB's themselves would be fraught with error. Although, sometimes, the snap judgement -- what you get from journalists instead of say professors of education research -- is the most practical one. It's interesting that more of the Boy Scout's modern offerings got put in "other" ... a grey area for sure.

Then there's the notion of what's offered vs. what's actually taken.

[qwazse]

So, I found the following thesis that compares the organization's' handbooks:

The author's analysis is admittedly qualitative, but I think more insightful.

Quote

In this research, I examine the concept of leadership as it is constructed in the youth- based organizations of Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts. How boys and girls are taught to lead as children in these single-sex, youth-based organizations has clear connections to prominent “masculine” and “feminine” styles of leadership, and I argue that these organizations assist in perpetuating gender inequality in the workplace in this way. Using historical content analysis and a modified grounded theory approach, I evaluate Boy Scout and Girl Scout handbooks printed over the paiist 100 years. I argue that through the process of “doing” leadership, the emotion work involved in becoming a boy or girl leader, and through promoting a sense of belonging, these organizations strategically strive to develop boys and girls with leadership styles that are gendered in nature. 

 

Edited November 17, 2018 by qwazse

[Treflienne]

On 11/17/2018 at 2:44 PM, qwazse said:

So, I found the following thesis that compares the organization's' handbooks:

I was hoping for an interesting read, but that paper is just too sloppily done to take seriously.  

For example, on page 14, the paper compares BSA and WAGGGS membership numbers.  The appropriate comparisons would be BSA with GSUSA or else WOSM with WAGGGS.

And she draws comparisons from Boy Scout Handbooks and Girl Scout Handbooks,  but for the recent years she used Junior Girl Scout handbooks which correspond in age to Webelos, not Boy Scouts.

And she gets her history wrong.  On page 22 she says

Quote

When Lord Robert Baden-Powell first founded the Boys Brigade in Great Britain at the turn of the 20th century, he did so as a national call for the development of survival skills that the next generation would need (Rosenthal, 1986).

 

[Treflienne]

On 11/17/2018 at 2:44 PM, qwazse said:

So, I found the following thesis that compares the organization's' handbooks:

And here's another sample from the conclusion (page 58)

Quote

Girl Scouts has done a superior job at meaningfully redefining its past, and I would argue being critical of it, in order to progress as the “premier leadership organization for girls”

and

Quote

If The Boy Scouts insists on continuously using the past to frame its efforts in the present, I hardly see a viable avenue for progression. Perhaps an effort should be made by this organization to be more critical of its past than what we have seen up to this point.

 

[qwazse]

@Treflienne I agree that it's not a very tight thesis. And, as we know, her conclusion is not universally accepted among progressive women. There are some who prefer to develop more directive leadership as a path to equality as opposed to more interpersonal leadership (my terms, not the author's). They see GS/USA's "progress" as more akin to "deviation." So, rather than BSA aligning to GS/USA, they wished that GS/USA would be more like BSA, have been asking for that for many years, and are now voting with their feet.

As to the handbooks promoting different leadership styles, I have seen this play out on several occasions. Venturers coming from the GS/USA are  invested in "emotion work", and they are sometimes surprised at how quickly good things can get done when they are more directive. Those coming from BSA or elsewhere, sometimes could stand to do a little "emotion work." Certainly, as I train boys in backpacking, the natural leaders need a lot of work learning how to pay attention to the needs of the patrol (e.g., load balancing, making sure everyone's had breakfast before moving out, etc ...).

 

[qwazse]

Just now, qwazse said:

@Treflienne I agree that it's not a very tight thesis. And, as we know, her conclusion is not universally accepted among progressive women. There are some who prefer to develop more directive leadership as a path to equality as opposed to more interpersonal leadership (my terms, not the author's). They see GS/USA's "progress" as more akin to "deviation." So, rather than BSA aligning to GS/USA, they wished that GS/USA would be more like BSA, have been asking for that for many years, and are now voting with their feet.

As to the handbooks promoting different leadership styles, I have seen this play out on several occasions. Venturers coming from the GS/USA are  invested in "emotion work", and they are sometimes surprised at how quickly good things can get done when they are more directive. Those coming from BSA or elsewhere, sometimes could stand to do a little "emotion work." Certainly, as I train boys in backpacking, the natural leaders need a lot of work learning how to pay attention to the needs of the patrol (e.g., load balancing, making sure everyone's had breakfast before moving out, etc ...).

So,  although I disagree with the author on several points, I liked her use handbooks instead of merit badge offerings to analyse the overall thrust of the programs.

 

[ianwilkins]

On 11/16/2018 at 7:48 PM, Treflienne said:

Nevertheless,  the history of the changes to the badge offerings is quite interesting.

Indeed. I have recollections of a UK reprint of a badge book from the 1920s-1930s that had a Mining proficiency badge in it. One of the requirements was to have spent "at least six months" working down a pit. Those were the days eh?

 

[RememberSchiff]

Interesting how the 10th Annual Report (1920. page 115)  categorized Merit Badges for which Pamphlets were prepared. 

I. Subjects that have to do with outdoor activities.

II. Subjects that have to do with outdoor activities of a vocational nature.

III. Subjects which have to do with the modern application of mechanics.

IV. Subjects which have to do with the preservation  of health and the saving of life.

V. Subjects which have to do with the so-called "Trades".

VI. Subjects which have to do with knowledge gained mainly from books and laboratory under instructors.

VII. Subjects which have to do with some form of Art.

Edited November 19, 2018 by RememberSchiff

[Treflienne]

2 hours ago, qwazse said:

So,  although I disagree with the author on several points, I liked her use handbooks instead of merit badge offerings to analyse the overall thrust of the programs.

I agree.   The handbooks (in addition to the badges, which for the older G.S. books were actually in the handbooks) gives a much fuller picture.   And the older books are a fascinating read.   I got my first old G.S. handbook when I was a kid and had tagged along with a friend (not a girl scout) and her mother for a day of exploring antique shops.   After that I kept my eyes open for them.     More recently, my daughter has asked for copies of Scouting for Boys (available in reprint) and the first american boy scout handbook (also available in reprint) and has been reading them with interest.

Comparing the current Boy Scout Handbook with the current Cadette Girls' Guide to Girl Scouting and the Cadette Journeys is similarly illuminating.   And I would reccommend doing so, to people who want to know the current differences between the programs.

Edited November 19, 2018 by Treflienne
typo

[Treflienne]

2 hours ago, qwazse said:

As to the handbooks promoting different leadership styles, I have seen this play out on several occasions. Venturers coming from the GS/USA are  invested in "emotion work", and they are sometimes surprised at how quickly good things can get done when they are more directive. Those coming from BSA or elsewhere, sometimes could stand to do a little "emotion work." Certainly, as I train boys in backpacking, the natural leaders need a lot of work learning how to pay attention to the needs of the patrol (e.g., load balancing, making sure everyone's had breakfast before moving out, etc ...).

I have certain seen in girl scout settings (more from handed down culture than from the handbooks directly)  the emphasis on trying to find solutions that everyone (or at least the vast majority) finds tolerable,  rather than just deciding by majority vote.    It can take much longer.   It can result in more happy kids, eventually.   A difficulty for the girls can be in recognizing when it is worth the time and effort to build consensus (perhaps by jointly figuring out a better option that previously considered) and when it is best to simply pick some option quickly.