Page H. L. Mencken

The denouncement of sham frequently is the response to a worthy instinct; it is very necessary at times. He who understands, feels called upon to lay pretense bare in order that those who have less understanding may profit there by; hence comes the critic.

The considerate critic will nevertheless weigh his words carefully, lest he overstate in his enthusiasm for his work. To err is human, and even critics are human. Critics may err through the insufficiency of their information concerning the objects of their criticism, and they may also err through misunderstanding of themselves.

To pass fair judgment on the conduct of others may be exceptionally difficult to one who erroneously believes his own nature to be normal. The normal reactions of average men may easily be misjudged by those of entirely different emotional natures. Herbert Spencer said that education which directs the emotions into proper channels is even more important than education of the so-called intellectual capacities. Students of psychology and educators of the present day recognize the truth of the statement. Rotarians who would not quite like to have Rotary develop into a purely high-brow movement find satisfaction in the fact that the great English philosopher recognized the importance of harnessing the emotions of men for the benefit of the social order.

Rotarians may seem to their critics, unnaturally enthusiastic and demonstrative at times. The warmth of their welcome may seem exaggerated, even assumed; but in reality it is natural and genuine.

Rotary has been designated a bourgeois organization; but England has been designated a nation of shopkeepers; the United States a nation of pork packers, and so forth. England and America have survived, and Rotary bids fair to do so. Rich and poor, princes and commoners have enrolled in Rotary.

Rotary in the United States has been designated by certain well-known critics, as shallow, boastful, and opinionated, entirely satisfied with conditions “as is” in our “great and glorious country”, and intolerant of opinion at variance with the conventional; it has at other times been designated an agency of impracticable reformers, dreaming of a world at peace, and dangerously dissatisfied with things “as is” in our “great and glorious country.” As a matter of fact, Rotarians are not extremists one way or the other. Idealists they are, to be sure, hoping for the best and willing to make sacrifices for it.

It is not to be expected that a movement would attain the proportions of Rotary without arousing criticism. Rotary’s conspicuous position makes it a mark for professional critics. The friendliness and informality of Rotary gatherings sometimes lead to an effervescence of spirits on the part of excitable members which finds expression in boyishness. Such manifestations constitute alluring opportunities for attack. It is not difficult to caricature an individual who caricatures himself.

Another favorable opening to attack has been found in the natural tendency to adopt high-sounding names and phrases. The term “Service” has at times become hackneyed. Rotary, Kiwanis, and Lions clubs are frequently referred to as “Service Clubs.” Terminology may go far to make or break a movement. “Piety” is an example of words which have suffered through excessive use.

High-sounding words and phrases suggest to the inquiring mind the question as to their sincerity, and adverse judgment frequently follows. There is at present a growing tendency in Rotary to get away from too frequent repetition of stock terms and phrases, and to be more conservative in expression. The term “usefulness” is less pretentious and probably more suitable than the term “service.” Rotary is a business men’s organization and business men like to keep their feet on the ground.

The practice of opening meetings with invocations has aroused criticism and has been taken as an evidence of hypocrisy. It has, however, worked out satisfactorily to the great majority of Rotarians, including those who do not ordinarily incline toward religious observances. It is believed that the effect sought has been realized; that is, that the practice has resulted in raising the general tone of meetings.

One might well go farther and say that the practice of invoking Divine Blessing in Rotary is anti-bigotry rather than pro-bigotry, it being the case that no favoritism is shown in the selection of invocationists. One day it may be a Protestant minister; another day a Catholic priest; and another, a Jewish rabbi. In countries where other forms of religion are represented in sufficient number, Mohammedan, Buddhist, or whatever they may be, an invocation in form familiar to them might be in order. In fact, the only members who could logically take offense are those who view all forms of religion as menaces to civilization, and of them there are not many.

However, criticism has its proper part in the affairs of men. Few attain eminence without being subjected to it. It should neither be fought nor ignored. It should be made to serve a purpose whenever possible. Many of the criticisms of Rotary have dealt with the superficialities rather than with the realities. They have been scathing, and at times brilliant. If the critics had been versed in the history and life of the movement, the subject would have proven less tempting, but the public would not have had the benefit of the extravaganzas which have been so entertainingly presented.

Rotary’s reaction to criticism has in the main been commendable. The leading critics have been frequently invited to speak before clubs, and in one instance the Chicago club offered to let one of the best known name his own terms for an address.

The writer thinks that Rotarians should be especially heedful of the deliberate, thoughtful criticisms of the committee selected from the social science experts of the University of Chicago. They cannot be brushed aside as the vagaries of unpractical men. They are not superficial; the committee had ample opportunity to study the literature of Rotary and to consult with many Rotarians, and it has availed itself of the opportunities. Their criticism is not inspired by ill-will; it is inspired by goodwill. It should serve to shake complacent clubs out of their complacency; indifferent clubs out of their indifference; and to arouse all clubs to higher sense of responsibility. Such criticism is in marked contrast in its spirit with Mr. Bernard Shaw’s flippant “I know where Rotary’s going; it’s going to lunch.”

One of the recommendations of the University of Chicago Committee to the Chicago Club, resulted in a change of the by-laws giving sanction to discussion of controversial issues. The resolution in favor of amending the by laws of the Chicago Club passed with an overwhelming majority and the discussion of such questions is already being tried out.

The report of the committee treats the subject at considerable length and very capably. To them, here lies Rotary’s supreme opportunity to harness the power of our world-wide organization. To the committee, the Rotary Club of Chicago, composed as it is of nearly seven hundred business men of influence, representing as many different trades and professions, constitutes an ideal forum, for the discussion of important questions and an ideal group in which to develop civic leaders. To the committee the prospects are so transcendent that they make the accomplishments of the club in philanthropic and charitable endeavor seem insignificant. The writer hopes, however, that Rotary’s present fields of useful endeavor will not be abandoned; surely not until experiment clearly shows the wisdom of such course.

The progress of an organization which must blaze its own trails is necessarily largely by trial and error. The great difficulty is to assume and maintain the experimental attitude of mind. Henry Ford was once asked by a newspaper reporter if he was willing to concede that he had made a mistake in a certain policy. The great industrialist answered that he did not remember ever having made a mistake; that he had tried a good many experiments, some of which had failed to work.

Pride of opinion is difficult to overcome, particularly in large organizations in which there are many leaders. The temptation to become dogmatic is natural; one sees his own ways so clearly, other ways so dimly. The writer is especially conscious of the difficulty because of his own frailties. He tries to be fair, unprejudiced and to preserve the experimental attitude of mind, but he undoubtedly fails at times.

In Rotary as elsewhere, there is much talk of fundamentals — but what is fundamental? Is, for instance, the elimination of discussions of political questions of a controversial nature, a fundamental? It has long been so considered. In fact, many Rotarians believe that Rotary’s unprecedented success in bringing men of diverse races and faiths into one fellowship has been based on the very fact that in Rotary the members have found sanctuary, freedom from propaganda and proselytism in any form. Rotary’s plan of recruiting its membership is both a strength and a weakness; it is the cement that binds and it is, at the same time, the TNT which could blow the structure into a thousand pieces if carelessly handled.

The proponents of the old order believe that its preservation is doubly important now that Rotary has assumed international character. When one crosses international boundary lines, he will do well to tread softly if he desires to make friends for his country. He had best not preach, speak patronizingly, lecture, or advise; he will almost surely fail of his purpose if he attempts to do so. He can advantageously use a few flowers, at times; and flowers of speech always are in order. The writer does not believe that a traveler should be a servile flatterer; no one likes a sycophant. If one can’t think sweet thoughts, in common honesty, he ought not express them. He had better remain silent, but he should remember that we are all of one great family, facing the same problems, sensitive to unkindness, responsive to friendly overtures.

The writer does not believe that one is called upon in the interest of international goodwill, to remain silent if his own country is ridiculed or reviled. It seems to the writer, a good policy never to provoke an attack and an equally good policy never to permit unjust charges against one’s own country or one’s countrymen to remain unchallenged; but when engaged in the discussion of international issues, if Rotary is to engage in such discussions, whether the subject be tariffs, debts, armaments, or what-not, we must be courteous at all times lest we do more harm than good.

While the writer is deeply interested in education and hopes that Rotary will play an increasingly important part in the promotion of a better understanding of international problems, he realizes, nevertheless, that one-sided education is worse than none. He believes that if a representative of one nation is permitted to present his country’s case before a Rotary club, a representative of the country holding opposing views (if there is any) should be permitted to present the generally accepted position of his country men. The writer would put it stronger; he would say that both sides of all important moot questions should be heard, or neither. As a lawyer, he knows that in the trial of cases, juries will almost invariably find in favor of the plaintiff unless the defendant also presents his side of the case. There is tragedy in the fact that the policy of nations with respect to declarations of war, generally has been based on ex parte hearings.

In one way or another, Rotary’s problems find a way of solution and the problem in question will probably prove to be no exception. Of all the problems which have confronted Rotary, perhaps none has ever called for the exercise of so much patience and forbearance. If the experimental attitude of mind is preserved, if pride of opinion is subdued, if infinite care is exercised lest Rotary be made a means of nationalistic propaganda, something worth while may come of it. In any event, Rotary clubs are autonomous within the limits of the constitution; it is the privilege of European clubs to experiment as they please within these limits. Rotary has long been committed to the policy of permitting Rotarians of different countries, great latitude in their methods of expressing the spirit of Rotary in manner best adapted to their respective needs. The needs of the New World may be one thing; the needs of the Old World, somewhat different; and all Rotarians find satisfaction in the adaptability of Rotary. The writer believes that much progress in the direction of finding a common denominator has been made; that American clubs are more like European clubs than they once were; and that European clubs have discovered values in American activities which were not discernible at first.

The comments of the University committee on fellowship, are of interest, and especially that part appearing, under the caption, “Is Rotary Fellowship a Detriment to Service?” It reads substantially as follows: “The incisive question which must be raised is whether Rotary fellowship is of a type conducive to service to society or detrimental to it? Are Rotarians ‘hail fellows, well met’ who pay lip-service to Rotary ideals but who are interested, primarily, in personal friendships and cordiality; in what might be termed an in-growing type of fellowship; or are they business and professional leaders who associate with one another for the promotion of an outward-looking type of fellowship for the fulfillment of the ideal of service through individual or group action?”

The answers to the question regarding fellowship which was included in the questionnaire sent by the committee to the membership of the Chicago Rotary Club moved the committee to conclude that: “the great majority of the members are bound together by a warm and deep cordiality which feeds on itself, is self-sufficient, and furnishes relatively little inspiration for individual or group action in fulfillment of the service ideal; and that the type of fellowship is wholly desirable per se, and constitutes the psychological foundation for one conception of the service ideal.”

Further on the committee reports: “The type of fellowship prevalent resembles the type found in social clubs and lodges. This is perhaps as it should be and in modern urban civilization, with its cold impersonality and confusion, any type of fellowship, any form of cordial, personal relations is to be welcomed as a social good. But the fact remains that fellowship of the prevalent type is not conducive to the type of service which seems most desirable. The question of policy must therefore be raised: Should Rotary endeavor by somewhat different types of programs and group activities to promote a type of fellowship different from that caricatured in ‘Babbitt’ and closer to the type symbolized by common-spirited devotion to an active and socially significant program of action?”

It seems to the writer, as before stated; quite in order constantly to endeavor to improve the programs and thereby increase interest in the hope that a larger percentage of the membership will become active participants in the work of Rotary. The reader will bear in mind that the survey was limited to the Chicago Club, by far the largest club in the entire movement, and that very large clubs are more likely to be “listeners” clubs, than discussion clubs. The tendency in the large clubs is to bring in important speakers from outside the ranks of Rotary, and the possibilities of general discussions are limited. The committees of the Chicago Club are much larger than the entire membership of some of the smaller clubs, and committee meetings to a certain extent make up for the lack of intimacy between club members in general. At such meetings, members of common mind and interest experience the useful fellowship approved by the University committee.

The spirit of criticism is back of all progress. Industry makes rapid strides because of its spirit of discontent. Progressive industry is ever exploring new fields, reaching out into the unknown. Any manufacturer who is content with simply maintaining present standards, will soon be. out-distanced. The most interesting department of any great manufacturing establishment is its research department, its expression of its essential spirit of discontent. Rotary’s greatest leaders are inspired by discontent. Rotary is not inclined to be impatient with sincere criticism.

“Wud some power the gif tie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us.”