Over the course of several prominent essays, architects and historians have each declared that today we “occupy a disciplinary ruin,” in which architecture is consumed primarily as media, shared systems for analysis and methodological tools are lacking, and the field has become atomized into niches, camps, and tribes. Earlier claims about disciplinarity sought to distinguish among architecture as a discipline, a profession, and a culture. This dialogue took stock of these claims, sought to understand the genealogy of the term casually known as “the discipline,” and asked how architectural pedagogy and discourse use and abuse what might be called “discipline-talk” toward various ends.