I suspect that I’m not alone in having harboured a lingering feeling of resistance to this word. Experiences which go back to early school years associate discipline with something imposed – against my will – from the outside; a restriction therefore, inviting resistance if not outright rebellion. (Of course, one of its uses is synonymous with “punish”.) But perhaps it is possible to find other more positive associations, which could lead to another attitude, another way of thinking.
The word “discipline”’ is closely associated with the word “disciple”. If we think of the relation between the disciples and Christ it is perhaps possible to see them as aspiring to become themselves by trying to emulate him. This is not a slavish, servile following, but a movement towards liberation from ignorance by submitting to a higher influence. (I’m reminded of a remark of Wittgenstein: “A teacher may get good, even outstanding, results from his pupils while he is teaching them and yet not be a good teacher; because it may be that, while his pupils are directly under his influence, he raises them to a height which is not natural to them, without fostering their own capacities for work at this level, so that they immediately decline again as soon as the teacher leaves the room.”)
On another level, we see a similar form of transmission in the learning of a craft. The master teaches the apprentice by example: direct, personal contact between master and pupil is an essential part of the process, and concerns so much more than mere “knowledge”: just as important is the attitude of the teacher toward his craft. (I once asked my brother, who is a bricklayer, how he could tell whether someone was a good craftsman, and he replied “By the way he picks up his trowel.”) Such things cannot be “taught” (as we tend to understand this word) but they can be passed on – incarnated by the pupil – by direct personal contact.
This leads me to some further thoughts about the use of tradition – which is another word that can evoke a negative response today. Tradition can be seen as essentially conservative, even deadening. (Although in these rootless times tradition can be seen as an almost revolutionary force.) But when I used the word “incarnated” (made flesh) I wanted to imply what I am convinced is the case: that a real tradition can only be alive in the present, and that means that it has to be “made new”, while at the same time respecting the essence of what has come down from the past. “Discipline” implies responsibility; it both limits the so-called freedom of “anything goes”, and makes possible new forms of expression which are required if the tradition is to remain alive. The great model for such a discipline and such a tradition is of course language itself.
I leave it to others to comment on the usefulness of these philological speculations. Of course, by itself knowledge of what is contained in words that we use unthinkingly will not get me anywhere. But if it leads me to reflect actively about my life – without seeking any simple answers – another attitude becomes possible.
Julian Arloff