Family - #401 - #07 – What’s the meaning of “Discipline”? (vs. Fear!)

What do we mean by “disciplining a child”?
Do you “spoil” a child if he/she has no “discipline”?
When the Military has “discipline” does it mean the same thing?
When you have a mathematics problem that requires a “disciplined approach”, is that the same thing?

Well, then, what do you mean?

For instance:
How can you keep saying “There’s not enough “discipline” in the schools today”. What’s that supposed to mean? There’s no rules to follow? There’s no punishment allowed! What are you trying to say?
Most of the emotional outbursts come when there is a “mutual misunderstanding” about what’s being talked about.
So what’s the answer … “What’s a successful alternative?”

A good start would be to see if the speaker knew more precisely what he was going to say “before’ he said it.
a) Are there rules? What rules? Whose rules? .. the student’s, certain students’, the faculty…. everybody?
b) Who interprets the rules? Who judges the “following” of the rules?
c) Who or what determines the punishment for the specific "breaking of the rules"?
d) Is the “process of judging” so complex that no rules are possible?
e) If there are no rules, can you have an education process? If no rules, explain the issues. What should people expect?

So, if this were meant as a “school definition of discipline”, everyone would know what was being talked about and exactly what the problems were.
If you had a “disciplined approach “ to a complex mathematics problem the “explainer” might wish to list what he meant by a “disciplined approach”

For example:

a) Figures should be written in an orderly and readable manner.
b) Conclusions must be based on a written theorem or hypotheses that includes the proof of that hypothesis before it is used a part of the conclusion.
c) There must be an Index Page showing the path that is going to be undertaken to arrive at the conclusion.
d) etc., etc.

So, it generally comes down to the simple proposition that many of these words are merely labels for a group of ideas that are similar but NOT the same. To use these words effectively, you must try to explain, in detail, what you are including in the general term you are using. We used the term “discipline”. We must explain the context or the environment in which we are going to use the term. Then we must break this context down into ever smaller parts and try to say what each part is and what it is not. We must “define”.
We cannot have a useful or effective conversation unless we mutually agree on what we’re going to include in our “definition”.
We simply cannot say “We must have more discipline in our schools” and go on to the next subject. We have just raised the emotions if not the interest in a “generality” and have left it twisting in the wind! It is a cause of emotion, distrust, and controversy; and is, at the same time, “useless”!!!
We need “discipline” in the military; but, as long as we don’t know what that really, specifically means; we are merely creating noise and confusion.

Many words are just general labels that require “breaking down into specifics” and must be defined in order to be used effectively and “mutually understandably”.

“Is there a successful alternative?”

P.S. ….What about “a show of force”!!!

What’s this supposed to mean? Do you strike someone who is breaking the law. Do you shoot if you are threatened? Or, do you assemble two blocks away and “show a force” and do nothing?

Sure there are a lot of ways to think about this. But do you physically exert a force to stop a crime; even if this may lead to more violence? Or, do you say that a “little, reasonably inexpensive criminal action” is more desirable than the possibilities of a much larger “litigious conflagration”?

How does the “little, inexpensive victim” protect himself; or, is this the price you pay for protecting against the “larger conflagration”?

Does this encourage the individual to change his behavior (i.e. Don’t go out at night …. Don’t go near large crowds….Don’t travel in certain places, etc.) or I’ll have to protect myself so I can be free to move about since I can’t expect the public authority (which I pay to support) to protect me.

Who is supposed to make a “definitive” statement? Who is supposed to be accountable?

Failing to answer these questions in a clear, mutually defined and understood way will lead to individual solutions. This is a sure path to “anarchy”. Then what?