Thursday, October 13, 2011

BusterStronghart@Gmail.com
Something about the historical context of a school birching drawing that I just looked at reminded me of a notion that’s always puzzled me. In the real world (I’m not talking about our kinky fun times now) why do authoritarians talk about imposing “discipline” on people when the trait you actually get from consistent punishment for infractions of rule sets is “compliance” or “obedience”? Discipline, rightly understood, is a virtue of self-control and individual initiative; by contrast, obedience is a survival skill of the powerless. 

(The difference: discipline is useful for accomplishing a person’s own goals, while obedience is entirely about what other people want.)

When the Victorians (to pick just one bad example) claimed that school punishment or military floggings instilled discipline, were they knowingly telling a euphemistic lie to pretty up the fact that they were just beating obedience into powerless people? Or were they actually confused about what they were doing and accomplishing?