I was particularly interested in Paul Fox’s interview with Hilary McRae, the Chair of the BWY’s Education Committee, and glad to see someone prominent in the BWY publicly entering the debate about Yoga regulation at last (‘Yoga’ Magazine, March 2005). Unfortunately, the article gives a less than clear picture of what is going on and I am gravely concerned that Yoga teachers, students and teacher trainers might be misled by it. I am also concerned that, if the article is accurate in its account of BWY thinking regarding regulation, then BWY has made at least two potentially disastrous mistakes which really do oblige the Yoga Community to resist the direction BWY is attempting to take us in.

The first mistake BWY has made is getting into bed with the fitness industry and acquiescing to the attempt to subsume the vocation of Yoga Teacher under the rubric of “Fitness Instructor Level Three”. This move allows the “employer-led” fitness industry body, SkillsActive, to set the “National Occupational Standard for Yoga Teacher” (NOS), giving plausibility to this grandiosely named but quite inappropriate “standard” in the process. Why BWY think that the fitness industry has the right or the knowledge to do this escapes me.

I’m well aware that BWY could counter here with the argument that a consultation process is taking place in which SkillsActive invites the views of the Yoga Community and that therefore SkillsActive are not imposing a view of what proper Yoga teaching is, but rather lending some “official” weight to a standard that the Yoga Community can gladly consent to, having been involved in its setting up. It is indeed the case that consultation is taking place as Paul Fox mentions in passing. However, as one who has received the consultation documents, I can assure the reader that this is consultation in name only and is designed to have scarcely any impact on the final outcome.

Let me explain. The NOS consists in two parts. The first part is the “generic standard” and it applies to all fitness disciplines, aerobics etc. A Yoga Teacher Training course wishing to enable its graduates to automatically access the Register of Exercise Professionals is required to map its course onto the generic standard in every detail. This part of the standard is already settled and is not up for consultation. The second part of the NOS is the “Yoga specific standard” and it is this alone that the consultation applies to. Now, if we notice that the “generic standard” is 47 pages long and highly detailed and that the draft Yoga standard is 2 pages long then we can get an idea of how little say the Yoga Community is actually going to get regarding the “standard” for Teacher Training that the fitness industry would like to impose. (Paul Fox glosses over this imbalance.) Furthermore, when we note that the consultation involves nothing more than ticking a couple of boxes to say whether we agree or disagree with a couple of highly circumscribed questions regarding the competencies required of Yoga teachers, with a few lines supplied on the form to say why we disagree (if indeed we do), it is obvious that this so-called consultation is little more than an attempt to create the appearance of legitimacy. Of course, the whole business is illegitimate since it does not have the consent of the Yoga Community at large and indeed should not have it on the grounds that it is for the most part an outside interference in Yoga.

A number of other problems arise from this teaming up of BWY with the fitness industry. One which is particularly alarming is the conflation of Yoga with fitness regimes in general that is a direct outcome of the way in which the generic standard makes up the great bulk of the NOS. This in effect sends the message to the public at large that the role of Yoga Teacher is that of a particular type of fitness instructor and indeed that Yoga is nothing more than a fitness regime. These truncated notions of what a Yoga Teacher ought to be and what Yoga is are quite prevalent at this time, but the Yoga Community has a duty to dispel them rather than reinforce them. There is no recognition of the spiritual nature of Yoga in the generic standard, nor can there be given its generic nature. Paying lip-service to the spiritual nature of Yoga in the specific standard isn’t going to mitigate this very much given how the bulk of the standard as a whole is delineated in the generic standard.

Another consequence of the very general nature of the generic standard is that, if it prevails, a very mechanical approach to Yoga teaching will become very common, which would be more than a pity. There is absolutely no recognition here of the role of inspiration, intuition, spontaneity and openness to the moment in the generic standard and such is its nature that approaches to teaching which are alert to these vital factors would be ruled out of court. There is no room here either for pedagogic styles of teacher training which (for instance) utilise the apprenticeship model or immersion in the milieu and atmosphere of an accomplished Yogi. Nor is there much recognition of the centrality of the teacher’s own practice in Yoga teaching. The whole approach is completely bureaucratic and lifeless – obsessed with lesson plans and record keeping rather than the transmission of a priceless spark. BWY have failed to ask a very fundamental question here. It is this: is Yoga pedagogy the same as that of other disciplines, particularly of fitness regimes? I don’t know how anybody with any knowledge and Yogic experience at all can answer yes to this question. Yoga is known by means of itself, not by the means appropriate to a step class.

A counter argument to what I have said here is to describe the NOS as a minimum standard that will ensure physical safety etc and onto which schools can superimpose their particular philosophies, spiritual agendas and pedagogic styles. But there is no escaping the fact that as far as the NOS is concerned, Yoga is a fitness regime and the spiritual vastness of Yoga is so much irrelevant flannel. This cannot but have a deleterious effect on Yoga in its guise as a highly beneficial cultural force now finding its feet in the West.

The second mistake that BWY have made is to misjudge the nature of the fitness industry. SkillsActive is an employers’ body and is bound therefore to serve employers’ interests, whatever spin it gives to its activities. REPS is owned by SkillsActive and so it too is a wing of the fitness industry. The biggest players in SkillsActive are the large chains of gyms and fitness centres, though other bodies are involved, like some local councils. The big fitness companies exist primarily to make profits for shareholders and owners – this is their bottom line and they are quite frank about it. One such chain, to give a particularly stark example, is actually owned by a large brewing and pub ownership concern which also owns a number of fast food outlets. This company can hardly claim that they are concerned with the health of the public, still less that their concern with Yoga is altruistic. Indeed, Yoga is bound by the economic logic of their operation to be viewed by them as just another commodity which they can sell. This is the view of Yoga that ultimately must inform the fitness industry given that its predominant agenda is profit-making. Now, whilst there is no harm in reaching out with the blessings of Yoga to people who use the fitness industry’s facilities, handing over the right to define Yoga and to say who can and cannot teach Yoga to these bodies or their surrogates SkillsActive and REPS is just plain wrong. I say this because, clearly, Yoga does not exist to make profits. Its project is nothing less than human emancipation and financial matters are only a consideration insofar as they enable that project to move forward. Indeed, the commodification of Yoga, which SkillsActive/REPS are party to, attacks Yoga at its very heart where resides a tremendous altruism which is absolutely incompatible with cynical commercialism. For this reason alone, BWY should have repelled the overtures of the fitness industry from the outset.

As for the question of standards: that is a matter for the Yoga Community at large and there is no need to go to SkillsActive or the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority or anybody else to legitimise what we do. In fact, it is a nonsense to do so, presupposing as it does that some higher perspective on Yoga resides with those who are not themselves Yogis.

So if you are a Yoga student, teacher or teacher trainer, please ask yourself these questions. Do you want Yoga to be the “property” of the fitness industry and treated like a commodity or do you want it to stand proud and independent as the blessing it is? Do you want Yoga to be understood within our culture as only a fitness regime or do you want its spiritual dimension to rapidly take an influential place in our culture? Do you want Yoga Teachers to be trained according to a lifeless curriculum that applies to every kind of fitness regime or do you want them to be trained according to the distinct principles and unique understanding of Yoga itself?

You will know by the way you answer these questions whether you see the need to resist the road BWY seeks to take us down or not. If you belong to the former camp, be assured you are not alone. I have had scores of letters from Yogis who take a similar view to that expressed above and many are now ready to network for mutual support and to create an alternative to the dead hand of officialdom, bureaucracy and corporate power. I remain happy to debate this matter with anyone, whether they are for or against the position I have laid out above.

The above contribution represents the personal views/researches of the author - a founder member of: www.independentyoganetwork.org. Peter Yates may be contacted directly at: yabyum@connectfree.co.uk or www.heartyoga.co.uk at the Parkdale Yoga Centre (International tel: + 44 1902 424048 UK tel: 01902 424048).

You may also wish to discuss/debate the issues raised in this article in our IYN Forum by clicking on the link below:
(IYN-111) Yoga Teacher or Fitness Instructor - Level 3? We value your feedback, information and personal experiences and would be pleased to hear from you.