Verhovayak Lapja, 1947 (30. évfolyam, 1-24. szám)
1947 / Verhovay Journal
1 PAGE 6 Verhovay Journal Nothing Personal . . . Most people think of children as of entirely different beings who have ltttle if anything in common with their elders. Their way of reasoning, their dreams, ambitions, hopes, joys and disappointments are considered “funny” if not ridiculous by the adult mind. And they are for ever reminded that they must “grow up” Jbefore they can expect to be taken seriously. However, the process of “growing up” usually is interpreted in terms of “change” rather than development. The child is supposed to learn to give up his juvenile ways replacing them with the dignified attitudes of the adults. In most instances this process is expected to involve a substantial transformation to such an extent that no one could recognize the child in the adult product. It is granted that the leopard cannot change his spots but no such concession is made to the child. He has to change not only his spots which would be the equivalent of manners and appearance, but also his mind and heart, in other avoids, his entire personality. Actually, however, the difference is not as great between adults and children. 99% of our little people develop rather than change, that is, essentially they remain what they were as children, only the outward manifestations of their character are modified by training. Camouflaged would be a better word, for the “growing up” process for most children consists only in the development of the ability to disg-uise tendencies the uninhibited and elementary display of which is marked “childishness” by the self-controlled adult. In their hearts most people remain children until their dying day and, therefore, nothing affords a better understanding of the workings of the adult mind th^n the study of juvenile behavior which frankly reveals what is carefully hidden and camouflaged by the adults. Adults, as a rule, are no more thruthful than the children, only they learned how to keep up the appearance of veracity. Nor are adults more patient than children, they only have learned to control (hide) their impatience. The malevolent child rarely develops into a charitable adult, but proper training may teach him the mannerisms by which he may appear as a charitable person. Uninhibited behavior is frowned upon by society which puts the label of “childishness” on the person indulging in self-expression to the extent of violating the social or moral code. Well aware of the dangers of unpopularity, most adults have learned by bitter experience that natural urges, elementary emotions must be carefully hidden. Temparament must be led into approved channels and its expression must be% adapted to the rules of society. As a result, stabbing is not done with a knife any more, but by smilingly uttered words. Vengeance is not practiced with a club in the hand, but by selfrighteous indignation, accusations and insinuations uttered with the prétense of moral superiority. The Civilized tools of elementary passions are just as effective, if not more so, as the club of the caveman. One’s opponent can be anvenge that much sweeter. One thing is sure: civilization has not changed elementary (childish) passions. It has only camouflaged them. “I DON’T LIKE YOU.” Only a child will tell a new acquaintance: “I don’t like you.” He can’t explain his dislike but he is perfectly willing to prove it by boxing his ears in, provided the opponent is not stronger. Since many of those to whom he so candidly admitted his dislike will have boxed his ears in, by the time he grows up he will have learned that such frankness does not pay. As a result, the adult will shake hand and courteously mumble: “Glad to know you”, though he certainly is everything but glad, because the elementary dislike is there, just as it was in his childhood, only he has learned at the cost of many a bloody nose that courtesy is a social necessity. It would be a surprise if all people suddenly would drop their pretenses and frankly express their sentiments. “I don’t like you!” would ring from millions of lips and the earth would turn into a battlefield much bloodier than ever witnessed by the stars. In nine out of ten cases they could not give a reasonable explanation for their dislike though they desperately grope for excuses justifying their passionate hates. People who are just naturally hateful or spiteful are walking pubiic prosecutors and a menace to the peace of mind of everyone with whom they come in contact. And it is a fact, that there are more of this type among the adults than among the children. Indeed, they have grown up, that is, they have developed. The harmless spark in the child’s heart has developed to a conflagration. Properly repressed by reason and will-power such personal dislikes may be kept under control so that not much harm could come of it except the emotional misery of the individual ridden by an anti-social temperament. The trouble, however, is that civilization affords a great number of outlets for unreasonable and unjustified passions and these outlets are widely used by these individuals to the great detriment of society. PROGRESS RETARTED The person who for some unfathomable reason dislikes his colleague will not stop with simply keepink out of his way. He will belittle him, his efforts, his talents, his work, anything he says and does. He will persecute him. The poor victim never knows why he can’t do anything right, why he is considered a dumbbell, why all his work is always thrown back at him, why the very air around him gets contaminated by the hateful attitude of one person. I>et him speak up at a meeting and his opponent will immediately jump up and take exception to his suggestions no matter how right or appealing they may be. Why? Because the passionate opponent cannot agree to anything coming from a person he dislikes. The better the idea is, the more he hates it because it nihilated by words and his agony puts his victim in a favorable is certainly prolonged making re- ' light. He cannot appreciate the value of a suggestion because he is blinded by its source. He rejects it and by bluff and force he pursuades others to join him. Thus a good idea is killed because of the hate of one person. Naturally, no one is pex'fect. If anyone could manage at least an appearance of perfection, the dislike of his persecutor could not gain following. But everyone has faults and these are made the most of by the blood-thirsty persecutor. He finally succeeds in having everyone see his victim’s human weaknesses through a magnifying glass. Naturally, they appear in unnatural proportions. Suspicion, lack of confidence and, in many instances, ostracism may follow. The victim is out. And there isn’t one who could not justify his attitude toward the ruined individual. Just as there isn’t one who would realize that his attitude and the resulting failure of the ousted individual was the product of one spiteful person’s unreasonable dislike. Of course, because a good idea was deafeated, progress is retarded. Personal hate overrides progress. The bitter joke, however, is that the spiteful objector invariably starts his caustic remarks with the assertion:1 “Nothing personal, you know ...” Yet the truth is, that all his objections are only raised for the purpose of whitewashing the real source of opposition: personal, very much personal, dislike . . .! There is so much of that going on in all walks of life, that it is impossible to refrain from the conclusion that most people remain children regardless of how much they pretend having grown up . . . THE IDEA, NOT THE SOURCE IS IMPORTANT! The rejection of ideas for reasons of personal dislike is childish because that’s how children act in their uninhibited, natural simplicity. Adults are supposed to judge every contribution, every achievement, every idea, suggestion or proposal on its own merits regardless of personal considerations. Actually, however, adults rarely practice objectivity to that extent. If they don’t like a person, they don’t like what he does, they don’t like what he says, they disagree with what he thinks, proposes or accepts. He may do a perfect job at his assignment, it’s just no good, because he does, it. He may be almost indispensable in his job, his contribution is ridiculed as negligible. Whatever he achieves, his success is attributed to “dumbluck” rather than his abilities which are vehemently denied. And, naturally, no good idea can come from such a source . . Fully aware of the eternal childhood of the majority of adults, psychologists insist that success cannot be attained without a pleasing personality. Del Carnegie’s doctrine of influencing people by winning friends is a concession to the childishness of adults who refuse to be influenced by people with whom they are not pleased. The facts, however, contradict the adults and their childish opinions. The world is full with pleasant people who have nothing to offer. That doesn’t mean that pleasant people are not valuable. On the contrary: with all the unpleasantness in the world, pleasing personalities afford great enjoyment, tranquillity and satisfaction to thqir surroundings. The development of a charming personality is a great achievement in itseif which does not need justification by other accomplishments. Progress, however, is not the product of charm. Other gifts, like brains, industry, pertinacy, ingenuity are the talents by which progress is attained. And these gifts may well exist in persons utterly lacking charm or otherwise not conforming to the social code. Some of the greatest personalities in the history of mankind were utterly disagreeable, unsocial, irresponsible and even —• immoral persons. So much so that some very mediocre individuals have come to believe that if they only act in the “Bohemian” manner than they will develop the gifts of the great. Of course, they don’t. They stay mediocre and become disagreeable if not repulsive. But the fact remains that some truly great man really had repulsive manners, habits and even morals. Their manners, habits and morals died with them, but their deeds and works are remembered and honored. If only a perfectly attractive person could produce valuable ideas, we wouldn’t have Shake-' speare, Oscar Wilde, Richard Wagner and innumerable others. Some of them, like Wilde and Wagner were utterly irresponsible. Others were vicious, disagreeable and generally hated. Yet they have made immense contributions to the world of arts and sciences. And certainly their work cannot be belittled by anyone though, in their life-time they were called lazy, shiftless, good-for-nothing scums of the earth . . . And that is not history but human life. Such is man. And by refusing to acknowledge the value of a man’s work because of his manners, character or morals, is unjust, to say the least, the much more so because in many instances the manners and morals of such an individual have become distorted under the constant pi'essure of hostility to which the unusually gifted person is subject. SPEAKING OF OURSELVES The Verhovay now is entering a period of crucial importance. The district meetings will be, held in the near future, to be followed by the National Convention. All these events offer opportunities for many a freefor-all of personal dislikes. It would be tragic, however, if personal dislikes were permitted to determine the future course of such a great organization as the Verhovay. Yet, it could happen easily, for it did happen in the past, in our organization as well as in all others, not only fraternals, but political, social and even religious groups. Suppose someone doesn’t like a certain officer of the society of which he is a member. Regardless of the quality of his work he must be kicked out. There are various ways to achieve that end. His persecutor may publicly assert that he does not attend to his duties properly. He probably doesn’t have the slighest inkling of what his job amounts to, but there is nothing in the world easier than to criticize. Or he may resort to slander maintaining that the officer is “morally May 14, 1947 unfit” for his position. A very effectvie method, though dishonest, but not obviously so. It can be managed with such a convincing pretense of indignation that the accuser may find himself elected to replace the ejected officer — which usually is his aim. If there is no hope for that, then the last resort is to suggest that the position be abolished. Why murder if the same results can be attained by methods which will make the murderer appear in the role of public benefactor? Or suppose that someone doesn’t like a certain delegate who happens to hit upon a marvellous idea.. It would probably kill him were the idea to gain popularity. Immediately he attacks. The speaker is ridiculed, criticized, slandered with the aim of convincing the delegates of the impracticality of that delegate’s notions. People are easy to sway. “Consider the source...” — they say (childishly) and if the opponent is smart enough the idea is defeated. A good man is discouraged. Progress is retarded. An excellent idea has been lost and shelved. Why? Nothing personal, you know . . .” Actually, however, progress is barred by nothing but personal dislikes. If people would finally grow up, they would forget their persona^ dislikes when dealing with public matters and let every idea stand or fall on its own merits. As long as we defeat constructive ideas by sticking our tongues out at their originators, we are nothing but children and our meetings are just street brawls camouflaged by pretensions of civilized behavior. Indeed, it is better to keep out of the way of undesirable persolalities. That, however, does not mean that their work should be discarded, their achievements ridiculed, their industry belittled and their talents denied. Because, thereby, we may deprive ourselves of what they may be able to offer . . . And it would be easier for us to approach this problem in the manner of adults if he would stop to realize that spontaneous dislike is our own fault rather than that of the disliked person. It is motivated by instinctive jealousy, selfishness, prejudices and similar essentially childish traits which, camouflaged by adult mannerisms, characterize a disturbingly large proportion of the world’s grownup population. Let’s, therefore, approach these important meetings of our Association with an open mind, resolved to act like grown-up people, unprejudiced and charitable fraternalists who are more concerned about the welfare and progress of their organization than the devising of ways and means of expressing and justifying our petty jealousies, unreasonable passions and personal likes or dislikes. Let nothing personal prevent us from acknowledging the contributions of our fellow-members to the advancement of the organization. Let nothing personal interfer'd with our appreciation of the accomplishments of oür fellowworkers. Let nothing personal blind our judgment when weighing the achievements of the past and the plans for the future. Let nothing personal block the progress of our Verhovay ....
