Self Defense VS Self Protection

I use both terms - but not to mean the same thing.  

I regard self protection as an umbrella term to describe the area of confrontation management knowledge and skills relating to protecting oneself from unlawful verbal or physical harm.  So as a very brief list (of things that in themselves overlap and of titles that can be further  divided): avoidance, deterrence, body language, verbal distraction and de-escaltion techniques, the legal uses of force and self defence.

I regard self defence as an umbrella term for the area of self protection relating to the use of physical tactics to defend oneself or another from unlawful harm.  That includes the use of pre-emptive force where appropriate. 

I regard self protction itself as a subset of the broader term Confrontation Management, which also includes areas such as physical intervention and restraint.  These activities may lead into or overlap with self protection but I regard them as having separate (though linked) elements.

I tend to be quite specific as to whether I say I am teaching a self protection or a self defence class.  In advertising though I will use both terms, partly because I'm doing both things, but also because the public may not be aware or agree with my distictions.  It is not helpful not to have self defence on a web page if the public is using that as their search criteria.

HI JWT,

I agree with your idea of umbrella terms. Obviously, self protection is a very broad topic and many words that mean the same thing can be used to describe it.   

However; I would like to mention that to me a lot of what falls under non physical self protection training is better described as personal safety knowledge.

For example, things like awareness training, tactical communication, threat assessment, travel security,  knowledge of physical security systems such as locks or alarm systems to me are better defined as personal safety knowledge.

I say this because although the words protection and safety are synonyms I would argue most people interpret them differently especially in the context of martial arts training. The word protecting being seen more as a physical thing rather than an avoidance exercise.

In conclusion, I think your concept of umbrella terms makes sense. So my next question to the group would be is it important to properly define what we are teaching and talking about ? Or am I just over complicating things ?

Hi Michael

I see where you are coming from.  A number of the things you mention I would say overlap with self protection, but I'd also include under the heading of 'security'.  While I like the term Personal safety, it can be misunderstood as 'Personnel Safety', which is another overlapping area.  I've used the term 'personal safety' less and less in recent years as for some reason people seem to associate it with weapon handling.

Is it important to properly define what we are teaching and talking about?  My answer would be "it depends."  It depends on what you are teaching, to whom you are teaching, what they are expecting to learn, and how they learn best.  Some people prefer working with meta models, others repsond better with milton models.  I use a mixture of both.  Being over specific in some contexts can hamper learning and limit expectations, being under specific can often faciliate learning (and custom).  There is a time and place for everything.

I don't think you are ever going to get a 100% concensus on definite meanings for each term.

Personally I use 'self-protection' for the most.  To me, SP encompasses the 'totality' of personal protection, which for instance, might include the defensive concept of preemptive offense.  Personally, I find the idea of SD tend to typically indicate more 'reactive' methods, or as you note, the 'fitting' of an 'art' style in (supposedly) 'real' fighting or at least non-athletic contexts.    But I really think (with no offense to the question) that its largely semantic or personal distinction.