#thank u tera for the opportunity to ramble about this!

[nothorses]

I'm curious if you have any further thoughts re; not generally liking the concept of discipline!

oh you know I do.

So okay, to preface, this is a subject that is very central to, like, my entire- and ongoing- education in education. I have read and talked and practiced about this a lot. I am very sorry for how wordy I'm about to get, and I'm sorry if I make any leaps or assumptions about where other folks are gonna be at in terms of familiarity with these ideas. (I am also approaching this, obv, from the perspective of education- not like, self-discipline as a skill).

There are two core arguments here: efficacy, and ethics. We first ask the question, "is it ethical?", and then we ask, "is it effective?", and if it's both of those things, it's probably a good idea!

Now, these questions can get a little complicated in practice... but discipline fails them both.

The "goal" of disciplining someone is to, essentially, end and prevent a behavior. Discipline does a few things to this end; it:

Establishes a boundary

Provides motivation not to cross the boundary

Provides consequences for crossing the boundary.

Establishing the boundary is, I would argue, not inherently a part of discipline itself- and oftentimes discipline comes without any kind of warning or boundary-establishing at all ("you know what you did", contradictory or nonsensical punishment, etc.- abuse, basically).

The motivation discipline provides is fear. Discipline doesn't need to be physical- oftentimes it's something like grounding, taking things away, or even just a stern conversation- but the goal of those threats is to create a sense of fear regardless. Fear of losing something you care about, fear of feeling guilt or shame, fear of being embarrassed in front of others, etc.

And the consequences for crossing the boundary are always going to be manufactured; someone has to follow through on the threat and implement them, because discipline necessarily is not natural. It is person-created and person-enforced.

Which leads to my next point:

Discipline has proven, again and again, to be a band-aid solution at best. Yes, there is motivation and there are consequences, and oftentimes it does dissuade people from crossing boundaries. But here's the thing: people are inconsistent, and people are not omnipresent. If a boundary is crossed and the enforcer doesn't know about it, there is no consequence. The threat is, at least partially, empty.

The other issue with efficacy are the lessons discipline imparts: that consequences are avoidable and/or arbitrary, and that person-enforced consequences are the only reason you should avoid crossing boundaries in the first place.

What if you can get around the consequences? What if you just decide not to care? There are other reasons to respect these boundaries, but discipline distracts from and says, if those consequences aren't enough for me to trust that you'll respect them on their own, then there is no reason for you to respect them on their own.

Discipline also demonstrates a cruel behavior and presents it as altruistic and necessary; "it's okay to treat people like this if you're enforcing a boundary". The impact of that will vary depending on the kinds of consequences we're talking about here, and whether this is imposed internally ("I can treat people like this"), or externally ("it's okay for others to treat me like this"), or both, will often depend on the person. But the core message remains the same.

It's common because it's the easiest solution, not the best one; if someone does something you don't like, just fucking fight them using whatever weapons you have until they stop. Be it physical pain, fear, shame, or guilt, the concept is the same and it is widely-applicable with pretty minimal need to adjust.

But there are alternatives, and those alternatives are not only more ethical- they are genuinely more effective as well.

First: the most effective way of preventing boundary-crossing is to avoid situations where it might happen in the first place. Whatever is motivating someone to cross a boundary, you should want to understand that. If you have the power to prevent it, you should try.

(ex: I plan the first day of outdoor ed so that my students can play freely for the last hour or so, which avoids a lot of problems that crop up if I try to get them to do anything mentally strenuous during that time instead.)

If you're at the point that you need to react rather than be proactive, your central goal should be to teach people:

What the boundary is

Why it's there

Why they should respect it.

This is most straightforward as a conversation, but it doesn't always have to be. Sometimes it's allowing people to find the boundary and learn what the consequences are, and acting as a support system, ready to step in and help if they're in any danger of being hurt. Sometimes it's asking questions and helping them think it through. Sometimes it's telling stories, or watching things with them, or even just teaching them how to pause, ask questions, and reflect on these ideas themselves.

When you can't convey all those messages, you can make do in other ways; distract and redirect away from the boundary, give them tools to avoid the boundary on their own, or evaluate natural consequences ("what is the bare minimum that needs to happen in order to stop this?")

There is a lot of theory around this in the field of education, but the gist of it is: just ask yourself why you're doing what you're doing, what messages you might be sending, and pay attention to the impact it has. Is there a better way? Is there another time/place it could happen instead? How could I prevent this from happening next time?

This carries to large-scale issues as well; incarceration and the criminal justice system relies on discipline, and it's fairly common lately to see alternatives discussed. Avoiding situations where discipline is needed at all is pretty core to that; social programs and supports are a major part of those conversations. When that fails, the next steps are to ask what the minimum we need to do to stop it is, and how we can prevent it from happening again: removal from the situation with minimal to no force, then mental health/other support as needed.

Ask yourself why someone might be doing something, and take the time to think of all the reasons you can. Is it really because they just want to do harm, or could it be something else? What kind of help or instruction do they need? What can you reasonably provide right now?

It's tough, and it goes against a lot of core self-preservation instincts- but if you're in a situation where you can decide whether or not to discipline someone, you're in a situation where you have a responsibility to evaluate whether you should in the first place.