As discussed in the Freedom chapter, one’s range of motion is directly proportional to one’s freedom.
However, having a broad range of movement is not the same as having freedom; freedom requires more. Freedom is defined as the measure of influence one can deliberately exert over one’s (physical and/or mental) position. So, for example, if you find yourself in the middle of nowhere, surrounded by a vast, open space, with no barrier to your movement, you have a broad range of movement. But — you are not necessarily free. If you were lost in that open territory, you would be effectively trapped in the middle of nowhere. To influence your position meaningfully, you need something that would enable you to be deliberate in designing your movement: You’ll need a map. Without a map, you’ll be able to move as you may wish, but your movement will be without aim. Aimless, and thus purposeless, movement — even if unrestricted — does not constitute freedom.
A more pedestrian example is “choice paralysis,” a psychological term that refers to an inability to move at all as a result of having too many options to choose from (Iyengar & Lepper, 2000).
Choice paralysis is a fairly common experience for newcomers to the USA — the land of the super-plenty. I experienced choice paralysis the first time I walked into an American grocery store in Boston, MA. I felt paralyzed by what seemed like an infinite array of options to choose from. I literally had to turn around and leave the store empty-handed. I quickly figured out that showing up to the store armed with a shopping list made all the difference. The shopping list is a map. It enables exerting deliberate influence over one’s position — it is liberating.
In the pursuit of happiness, the map is one’s inner discipline. Cultivating inner discipline is the only way to invest in one’s own freedom (at minimum, it’s the only way I know).
Discipline is defined as the capacity to follow a rule over time. There are four variants of discipline, produced by two axes: the origin of the rule (whether it comes from within oneself or from an external source), and the nature of the consequence for breaking it (whether that consequence is compassionate/non-punishing or discompassionate/punitive). These two axes yield four types: compassionate inner discipline, punitive inner discipline, compassionate external discipline, and punitive external discipline. They impact freedom and the pursuit of happiness differently.
Rules have a point of origin. A rule that originates from within one’s own brain is the source of inner or self-discipline. A rule that originates externally results in the experience of being disciplined.
Note that an externally originating rule can be embraced and internalized — once internalized, following it becomes an expression of inner discipline. Devoutly religious people internalize the rules of their religion; devout military personnel internalize their military rules. In both cases, following those rules is experienced as inner discipline.
The second axis is the consequence of breaking the rule. A rule — unlike a recommendation — carries consequences for non-compliance. Those consequences are either compassionate (non-punishing) or discompassionate (punitive).
Of the four discipline variants, the most effective way to protect and grow one’s freedom is to cultivate compassionate inner discipline. Discompassionate external discipline is restrictive and has the opposite effect — not only does it not contribute to freedom, it tends to reduce it.
The most common form of discipline excludes compassion. For many, it is the only type of discipline they have experienced, which explains the prevailing negative take on the concept of ‘discipline.’ Unfortunately, the negative association leads many to reject discipline altogether, to their (unrecognized) detriment. Understanding the four variants of discipline and their impact on freedom can change this. Furthermore, in my clinical experience, grasping the link between compassionate inner discipline and freedom can remove the negative stigma and generate (a degree of) enthusiasm about cultivating it.
The impact that compassionate (non-punishing) external discipline and discompassionate (punishment-based) inner discipline have on freedom depends on the specifics of the situation. Let’s break it down. First, in all cases, the rules must be commonsense and support a productive cause.
Second, the nature of the punishment matters. Discompassionate inner discipline employs a range of self-inflicted punishments. Examples of self-inflicted punishments include name-calling (e.g., calling oneself weak, stupid, worthless, ugly, or unloveable as a consequence of failing to follow a rule), negative future-tripping (e.g., “because I failed to follow my rule, I will never amount to anything,” or “I will never succeed at anything”), and various forms of self-deprivation (“because I didn’t follow my rule I will not eat dinner,” or “I will cancel the plans to go out with my friends”). More unhealthy consequences can include self-harm (e.g., subjecting oneself to grueling, unhealthy physical activity) and outright self-injurious behavior (e.g., self-inflicted cuts or burns; self-injurious behavior of this kind represents a clinical threshold that falls outside the scope of a discipline framework and warrants professional attention). Inner discipline associated with mild punishment can retain some liberating effect. As punishments become harsher, the benefits of the discipline practice diminish.
When it comes to non-punishing external discipline, the compassionate consequence for breaking the rule is a careful review of the circumstances that led to the failure to follow the rule. This is the only kind of consequence that does not subject the person being disciplined to judgment. Circumventing judgment negates rejection and thus protects compassion. (As advertised above, the concept of compassionate consequences is discussed in detail in the Practice section.)
The bottom line is that inner discipline — even when discompassionate (as long as the punishments are limited and are non-injurious), and external discipline — as long as it is compassionate, can have a positive impact on freedom. These variants of discipline are sub-optimal (in comparison with compassionate inner discipline), but, in terms of cultivating freedom, they are better than no discipline at all.
The link between discipline and freedom is remarkably strong: Where there is sustained freedom, there is discipline (even if this dynamic is completely unrecognized). For example, one must be financially disciplined to have financial freedom, freedom in a relationship depends on having discipline in it, and the freedom to express yourself artistically requires the discipline of practicing the art form.
Perhaps more importantly, the link between discipline and freedom works in the other direction as well; that is, a lack of inner discipline manifests as a lack of freedom. It therefore stands to reason that cultivating inner discipline (i.e., developing more of it) would manifest as regaining freedom. Strengthening one’s compassionate inner discipline can enhance one’s freedom in just about any circumstance. Whatever the trap is — from writer’s block to a dead-end job to the nightmare of an addiction — the most effective, if not the only way, to invest in one’s liberation is to cultivate inner discipline.
(This chapter is complementary to the ‘Cultivating Inner Discipline’ chapter available in the companion Practice volume.)
REFERENCES
Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (2000). When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 995-1006. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.995