An event occurred in 1929 that created a national sensation in educational circles. Learned men from all over America rushed to Chicago to witness the affair. A few years earlier, a young man by the name of Robert Hutchins had worked his way through Yale, acting as a waiter, a lumberjack, a tutor, and a clothes-line salesman. Now, only eight years later, he was being inaugurated as president of the fourth richest university in America, the University of Chicago. His age? Thirty. Incredible! The older educators shook their heads. Criticism came roaring down upon the“boy wonder”like a rockslide. He was this and he was that—too young, inexperienced— his educational ideas were cockeyed. Even the newspapers joined in the attack.
The day he was inaugurated, a friend said to the father of Robert Maynard Hutchins:“I was shocked this morning to read that newspaper editorial denouncing your son.”
“Yes,”the elder Hutchins replied,“it was severe, but remember that no one ever kicks a dead dog.”
Yes, and the more important a dog is, the more satisfaction people get in kicking him. The Prince of Wales who later became Edward VIII (now Duke of Windsor) had that forcibly brought home to him.
He was attending Dartmouth College in Devonshire at the time—a college that corresponds to the Naval Academy at Annapolis. The Prince was about fourteen. One day one of the naval officers found him crying, and asked him what was wrong. He refused to tell at first, but finally admitted the truth: he was being kicked by the naval cadets. The commodore of the college summoned the boys and explained to them that the Prince had not complained, but he wanted to find out why the Prince had been singled out for this rough treatment.
After much hemming and hawing and toe scraping, the cadets finally confessed that when they themselves became commanders and captains in the King's Navy, they wanted to be able to say that they had kicked the King!
So when you are kicked and criticised, remember that it is often done because it gives the kicker a feeling of importance. It often means that you are accomplishing something and are worthy of attention. Many people get a sense of savage satisfaction out of denouncing those who are better educated than they are or more successful. For example, while I was writing this chapter, I received a letter from a woman denouncing General William Booth, founder of the Salvation Army. I had given a laudatory broadcast about General Booth; so this woman wrote me, saying that General Booth had stolen eight million dollars of the money he had collected to help poor people. The charge, of course, was absurd. But this woman wasn't looking for truth. She was seeking the mean-spirited gratification that she got from tearing down someone far above her. I threw her bitter letter into the wastebasket, and thanked Almighty God that I wasn't married to her. Her letter didn't tell me anything at all about General Booth, but it did tell me a lot about her. Schopenhauer had said it years ago:“Vulgar people take huge delight in the faults and follies of great men.”
One hardly thinks of the president of Yale as a vulgar man; yet a former president of Yale, Timothy Dwight, apparently took huge delight in denouncing a man who was running for President of the United States. The president of Yale warned that if this man were elected President,“we may see our wives and daughters the victims of legal prostitution, soberly dishonoured, speciously polluted; the outcasts of delicacy and virtue, the loathing of God and man.”
Sounds almost like a denunciation of Hitler, doesn't it? But it wasn't. It was a denunciation of Thomas Jefferson. Which Thomas Jefferson? Surely not the immortal Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, the patron saint of democracy? Yes, verily, that was the man.
What American do you suppose was denounced as a“hypocrite”,“an impostor”, and as“l(fā)ittle better than a murderer”? A newspaper cartoon depicted him on a guillotine, the big knife read to cut off his head. Crowds jeered at him and hissed him as he rode through the street. Who was he? George Washington.
But that occurred a long time ago. Maybe human nature has improved since then. Let's see. Let's take the case of Admiral Peary—the explorer who startled and thrilled the world by reaching the North Pole with dog sleds on April 6, 1909—a goal that brave men for centuries had suffered and died to attain. Peary himself almost died from cold and starvation; and eight of his toes were frozen so hard they had to be cut off. He was so overwhelmed with disasters that he feared he would go insane. His superior naval officers in Washington were burned up because Peary was getting so much publicity and acclaim. So they accused him of collecting money for scientific expeditions and then“l(fā)ying around and loafing in the Arctic.”And they probably believed it, because it is almost impossible not to believe what you want to believe. Their determination to humiliate and block Peary was so violent that only a direct order from President McKinley enabled Peary to continued his career in the Arctic.
Would Peary have been denounced if he had had a desk job in the Navy Department in Washington. No. He wouldn't have been important enough then to have aroused jealousy.
General Grant had an even worse experience than Admiral Peary. In 1862, General Grant won the first great decisive victory that the North had enjoyed—a victory that was achieved in one afternoon, a victory that made Grant a national idol overnight—a victory that had tremendous repercussions even in far-off Europe—a victory that set church bells ringing and bonfires blazing from Maine to the banks of the Mississippi. Yet within six weeks after achieving that great victory, Grant—hero of the North—was arrested and his army was taken from him. He wept with humiliation and despair.
Why was General U.S. Grant arrested at the flood tide of his victory? Largely because he had aroused the jealousy and envy of his arrogant superiors.
If we are tempted to be worried about unjust criticism here is Rule:
REMEMBER THAT UNJUST CRITICISM IS OFTEN A DISGUISED COMPLIMENT. REMEMBER THAT NO ONE EVER KICKS A DEAD DOG.
1929年芝加哥發(fā)生了一件轟動全國教育界的事,全美的學者都趕赴芝加哥見證此事。幾年前,一個名叫羅伯特·哈金斯的年輕男子用當餐廳服務(wù)員、伐木工、家教和服裝銷售員賺來的錢供自己讀完了耶魯大學。八年后的他成了芝加哥大學的校長,這是美國第四大資源豐富的名校,而他只有三十歲!這簡直不可思議!年長的教育家們紛紛搖頭。無數(shù)的批評聲向這個“神奇男孩”排山倒海地涌來,紛紛說他這不對、那不好,認為他太年輕、缺乏經(jīng)驗,教育理念太荒唐。就連報紙都加入了批評大軍。
哈金斯就職那天,一個朋友對他的父親說:“我很驚訝報紙竟然這樣詆毀你的兒子?!?/p>
“是的,”老哈金斯回答,“這非常糟糕,但別忘了,沒人會去踢一只死狗?!?/p>
沒錯,這只狗越重要,別人踢它時就越有滿足感。后來成為愛德華八世的威爾士親王也受到過這樣的“待遇”。那時他在位于德文郡的達特茅斯學院就讀——那是相當于美國安納波利斯海軍學院的一所院校,當時親王大概有十四歲。一天,一名海軍軍官發(fā)現(xiàn)他在哭,就問他發(fā)生了什么。一開始他不肯回答,后來終于承認,海軍學員們踢了他。學院的指揮官把那些男孩召集起來,首先說明親王并未告狀,但希望知道為何大家孤立他并如此粗暴地對待他。
男孩們支支吾吾,腳尖蹭來蹭去,很長時間后終于說了實話。他們希望有朝一日成為海軍軍官為國王效勞時就能跟別人說:我踢過國王!
所以當你被人踢、被人罵時請記住,那些人往往是想通過這種行為來感覺自己重要,這往往意味著你有所成就、值得被關(guān)注。很多人通過詆毀比自己學歷高或更有成就的人來得到粗暴的滿足感。比如說,我在撰寫此章時收到了一位女士的來信,她在信中譴責了威廉·布斯將軍——救世軍組織的創(chuàng)始人。我曾經(jīng)當眾贊賞過布斯將軍,但是這個女人寫道,布斯將軍挪用了八百萬捐給窮人的款項。這種指控自然是莫須有的,但這個女人并不在意事實,她只想通過詆毀比她層次高的人來獲取快感。我把這封可悲的信扔進了垃圾筐,并感謝上蒼我沒有娶這樣一個女人。她的信中并沒有提到多少有關(guān)布斯將軍的信息,反倒讓我看到她是怎樣的人。叔本華數(shù)年前說過:“卑微的人總是從偉人的缺點和失誤中得到極大的快感?!?/p>
很少有人認為耶魯大學的校長會是卑微的人,然而耶魯?shù)囊晃磺靶iL就曾把詆毀美國總統(tǒng)候選人作為極大的樂趣。這位耶魯前校長警告大家,如果這個候選人當選總統(tǒng),那么“我們的妻子和女兒或許會去賣淫,徹底地身敗名裂,會虛榮骯臟、不知廉恥、沒有道德、人神共憤”。
這聽上去好像是在指責希特勒,不是嗎?但并非如此。他罵的是托馬斯·杰斐遜。哪個托馬斯·杰斐遜?難道是那個千載揚名的托馬斯·杰斐遜,《獨立宣言》的起草者、民主的守護神?沒錯,就是他。
你猜猜還有哪位美國人被罵作“偽君子”“騙子”和“只比殺人犯好一點點”?而且在報紙上刊登的一幅漫畫中,他趴在斷頭臺上即將被斬首,游街示眾時周圍嘲笑聲、噓聲一片。你猜這個人是誰?對,是喬治·華盛頓。
當然這是很久遠的事了,或許人性已經(jīng)進化了。那讓我們再看一看海軍上將佩里的例子吧。他在1909年4月6日乘著狗拖的雪橇到達了北極,這震驚了全世界。這是幾個世紀以來,勇敢的人不畏痛苦、饑餓與死亡而試圖實現(xiàn)的目標。不過,佩里本人也差點死于寒冷和饑餓,他的八個腳趾也因嚴重冰凍而不得不被切除。路上的重重災(zāi)難使他不堪重負,他一度曾擔心自己會瘋掉。他的上司——身在華盛頓的海軍軍官——看不慣佩里受到的極大關(guān)注和贊賞,于是指控他打著科學探險的旗號賺錢,并且“在北極無所事事”??杀氖墙^大多數(shù)人相信了,因為他們本就希望聽到這些,所以很難不去相信。他們羞辱并阻撓佩里的決心是如此堅定,若不是麥金萊總統(tǒng)直接下命令,佩里在北極的事業(yè)便無法繼續(xù)了。
如果佩里做的是坐在華盛頓海軍部辦公室里的工作,他還會被如此聲討嗎?不會。那樣的人不夠重要,不足以引起嫉妒。
格蘭特將軍的遭遇比佩里上將還要糟糕。1862年,格蘭特將軍為北方贏得了一場偉大的勝利。這是一個下午就得來的勝利,是使格蘭特將軍一夜成名的勝利,即便在遙遠的歐洲也反響巨大。從緬因到密西西比河岸的教堂都鳴起了鐘聲、燃起了篝火。然而勝利后的六周里,格蘭特這個北方英雄就被拘捕了,他的兵權(quán)也被剝奪了。他在羞辱和絕望中哭泣。
為什么格蘭特將軍會在勝利高潮中被捕呢?很大程度上是因為他傲慢的上級心生妒忌。
在受到不公的批評干擾時,請記?。?/p>
不公的批評往往是變相的贊美。請記住,沒人會去踢一條死狗。