Besides being amiable clubmates, the Junto members often proved helpful to one another personally and professionally. Franklin also used the Junto to push his belief that the best method of discussion was gentle Socratic questioning rather than disputatious assertions and argument. It was a style he would urge upon the Constitutional Convention 60 years later.
PHILADELPHIA, 1732
Previous question, to be answered at every meeting.
Have you read over these queries this morning, in order to consider what you might have to offer the Junto [touching] any one of them? viz.
1. Have you met with any thing in the author you last read, remarkable, or suitable to be communicated to the Junto? particularly in history, morality, poetry, physic, travels, mechanic arts, or other parts of knowledge.
2. What new story have you lately heard agreeable for telling in conversation?
3. Hath any citizen in your knowledge failed in his business lately, and what have you heard of the cause?
4. Have you lately heard of any citizens thriving well, and by what means?
5. Have you lately heard how any present rich man, here or elsewhere, got his estate?
6. Do you know of any fellow citizen, who has lately done a worthy action, deserving praise and imitation? or who has committed an error proper for us to be warned against and avoid?
7. What unhappy effects of intemperance have you lately ob-served or heard? of imprudence? of passion? or of any other vice or folly?
8. What happy effects of temperance? of prudence? of moderation? or of any other virtue?
9. Have you or any of your acquaintance been lately sick or wounded? If so, what remedies were used, and what were their effects?
10. Who do you know that are shortly going voyages or journeys, if one should have occasion to send by them?
11. Do you think of any thing at present, in which the Junto may be serviceable to mankind? to their country, to their friends, or to themselves?
12. Hath any deserving stranger arrived in town since last meeting, that you heard of? and what have you heard or observed of his character or merits? and whether think you, it lies in the power of the Junto to oblige him, or encourage him as he deserves?
13. Do you know of any deserving young beginner lately set up, whom it lies in the power of the Junto any way to encourage?
14. Have you lately observed any defect in the laws of your country, [of] which it would be proper to move the legislature for an amendment? Or do you know of any beneficial law that is wanting?
15. Have you lately observed any encroachment on the just liberties of the people?
16. Hath any body attacked your reputation lately? and what can the Junto do towards securing it?
17. Is there any man whose friendship you want, and which the Junto or any of them, can procure for you?
18. Have you lately heard any member’s character attacked, and how have you defended it?
19. Hath any man injured you, from whom it is in the power of the Junto to procure redress?
20. In what manner can the Junto, or any of them, assist you in any of your honorable designs?
21. Have you any weighty affair in hand, in which you think the advice of the Junto may be of service?
22. What benefits have you lately received from any man not present?
23. Is there any difficulty in matters of opinion, of justice, and injustice, which you would gladly have discussed at this time?
24. Do you see any thing amiss in the present customs or proceedings of the Junto, which might be amended?
Any person to be qualified, to stand up, and lay his hand on his breast, and be asked these questions; viz.
1. Have you any particular disrespect to any present members? Answer. I have not.
2. Do you sincerely declare that you love mankind in general; of what profession or religion soever? Answ. I do.
3. Do you think any person ought to be harmed in his body, name or goods, for mere speculative opinions, or his external way of worship? Ans. No.
4. Do you love truth’s sake, and will you endeavor impartially to find and receive it yourself and communicate it to others? Answ. Yes…
Queries to be asked the Junto
Whence comes the dew that stands on the outside of a tankard that has cold water in it in the summer time?
Does the importation of servants increase or advance the wealth of our country?
Would not an office of insurance for servants be of service, and what methods are proper for the erecting such an office?
Qu. Whence does it proceed, that the proselytes to any sect or persuasion generally appear more zealous than those who are bred up in it?
Answ. I suppose that people bred in different persuasions are nearly zealous alike. He that changes his party is either sincere, or not sincere; that is he either does it for the sake of the opinions merely, or with a view of interest. If he is sincere and has no view of interest; and considers before he declares himself, how much ill will he shall have from those he leaves, and that those he is about to go among will be apt to suspect his sincerity: if he is not really zealous he will not declare; and therefore must be zealous if he does declare. If he is not sincere, he is obliged at least to put on an appearance of great zeal, to convince the better, his new friends that he is heartily in earnest, for his old ones he knows dislike him. And as few acts of zeal will be more taken notice of than such as are done against the party he has left, he is inclined to injure or malign them, because he knows they contemn and despise him. Hence one renegade is (as the proverb says) worse than 10 Turks.
Qu. Can a man arrive at perfection in this life as some believe; or is it impossible as others believe?
A. Perhaps they differ in the meaning of the word perfection.
I suppose the perfection of any thing to be only the greatest the nature of that thing is capable of;
Different things have different degrees of perfection; and the same thing at different times.
Thus an horse is more perfect than an oyster yet the oyster may be a perfect oyster as well as the horse a perfect horse.
And an egg is not so perfect as a chicken, nor a chicken as a hen; for the hen has more strength than the chicken, and the chicken more life than the egg: yet it may be a perfect egg, chicken and hen.
If they mean, a man cannot in this life be so perfect as an angel, it may be true; for an angel by being incorporeal is allowed some perfections we are at present incapable of, and less liable to some imperfections that we are liable to.
If they mean a man is not capable of being so perfect here as he is capable of being in heaven, that may be true likewise. But that a man is not capable of being so perfect here, as he is capable of being here; is not sense; it is as if I should say, a chicken in the state of a chicken is not capable of being so perfect as a chicken is capable of being in that state. In the above sense if there may be a perfect oyster, a perfect horse, a perfect ship, why not a perfect man? That is as perfect as his present nature and circumstances admit?
Quest. Wherein consists the happiness of a rational creature?
Ans. In having a sound mind and a healthy body, a sufficiency of the necessaries and conveniencies of life, together with the favor of god, and the love of mankind.
Qu. What do you mean by a sound mind?
A. A faculty of reasoning justly and truly in searching after and discovering such truths as relate to my happiness. Which faculty is the gift of god, capable of being improved by experience and instruction, into wisdom.
Q. What is wisdom?
A. The knowledge of what will be best for us on all occasions and of the best ways of attaining it.
Q. Is any man wise at all times, and in all things?
A. No; but some are much more frequently wise than others.
Q. What do you mean by the necessaries of life?
A. Having wholesome food and drink wherewith to satisfy hunger and thirst, clothing and a place of habitation fit to secure again
st the inclemencies of the weather.
Q. What do you mean by the conveniencies of life?
A. Such a plenty.
And if in the conduct of your affairs you have been deceived by others, or have committed any error your self, it will be a discretion in you to observe and note the same, and the defailance, with the means or expedient to repair it.
No man truly wise but who hath been deceived.
Let all your observations be committed to writing every night before you go to sleep.
Query, whether it is worth a rational man’s while to forego the pleasure arising from the present luxury of the age in eating and drinking and artful cookery, studying to gratify the appetite for the sake of enjoying healthy old age, a sound mind and a sound body, which are the advantages reasonably to be expected from a more simple and temperate diet.
Whether those meals and drinks are not the best, that contain nothing in their natural tastes, nor have any thing added by art so pleasing as to induce us to eat or drink when we are not athirst or hungry or after thirst and hunger are satisfied; water for instance for drink and bread or the like for meat?
Is there any difference between knowledge and prudence?
If there is any, which of the two is most eligible?
Is it justifiable to put private men to death for the sake of public safety or tranquility, who have committed no crime?
As in the case of the plague to stop infection, or as in the case of the Welshmen here executed.
Whether men ought to be denominated good or ill men from their actions or their inclinations?
If the sovereign power attempts to deprive a subject of his right, (or which is the same thing, of what he thinks his right) is it justifiable in him to resist if he is able?
What general conduct of life is most suitable for men in such circumstances as most of the members of the Junto are; or, of the many schemes of living which are in our power to pursue, which will be most probably conducive to our happiness?
Which is best to make a friend of, a wise and good man that is poor; or a rich man that is neither wise nor good? Which of the two is the greatest loss to a country, if they both die?
Which of the two is happiest in life?
Does it not in a general way require great study and intense application for a poor man to become rich and powerful, if he would do it, without the forfeiture of his honesty?
Does it not require as much pains, study and application to become truly wise and strictly good and virtuous as to become rich?
Can a man of common capacity pursue both views with success at the same time?
If not, which of the two is it best for him to make his whole application to?
How to Please in Conversation
In a newspaper piece that he wrote shortly after forming the Junto, Franklin stressed the importance of deferring—or at least giving the appearance of deferring—to others. “Would you win the hearts of others, you must not seem to vie with them, but to admire them,” he sagely counseled.
The older he got, the more Franklin learned (with a few notable lapses) to follow his own advice. He used silence wisely, employed an indirect style of persuasion, and feigned modesty and naiveté in disputes. “When another asserted something that I thought an error, I denied myself the pleasure of contradicting him,” he recalled when writing his autobiography. Instead, he would agree in parts and suggest his differences only indirectly.
The method would become, often with a nod to Franklin, a staple in modern management guides and self-improvement books. Dale Carnegie, in his book How to Win Friends and Influence People, draws on Franklin’s rules for conversation. Carnegie’s rules include: “The only way to get the best of an argument is to avoid it.” “Show respect for the other person’s opinions. Never say, ‘You’re wrong.,’ ” “Call attention to people’s mistakes indirectly,” and “Ask questions instead of giving direct orders.”
THE PENNSYLVANIA GAZETTE, OCTOBER 15, 1730
To please in conversation is an art which all people believe they understand and practice, though most are ignorant or deficient in it. The bounds and manner of this paper will not allow a regular and methodical discourse on the subject, and therefore I must beg leave to throw my thoughts together as they rise.
The two grand requisites in the art of pleasing, are complaisance and good nature. Complaisance is a seeming preference of others to our selves; and good nature a readiness to overlook or excuse their foibles, and do them all the services we can. These two principles must gain us their good opinion, and make them fond of us for their own sake, and then all we do or say will appear to the best advantage, and be well accepted. Learning, wit, and fine parts, with these, shine in full luster, become wonderfully agreeable, and command affection; but without them, only seem an assuming over others, and occasion envy and disgust. The common mistake is, that people think to please by setting themselves to view, and showing their own perfections, whereas the easier and more effectual way lies quite contrary. Would you win the hearts of others, you must not seem to vie with, but admire them: give them every opportunity of displaying their own qualifications, and when you have indulged their vanity, they will praise you too in turn, and prefer you above others, in order to secure to themselves the pleasure your commendation gives.
But above all, we should mark out those things which cause dislike, and avoid them with great care. The most common amongst these is, talking overmuch, and robbing others of their share of the discourse. This is not only incivility but injustice, for every one has a natural right to speak in turn, and to hinder it is an usurpation of common liberty, which never fails to excite resentment. Besides, great talkers usually leap from one thing to another with so much rapidity, and so ill a connection, that what they say is a mere chaos of noise and nonsense; though did they speak like angels they still would be disagreeable. It is very pleasant when two of these people meet: the vexation they both feel is visible in their looks and gestures; you shall see them gape and stare, and interrupt one another at every turn, and watch with the utmost impatience for a cough or a pause, when they may crowd a word in edgeways: neither hears nor cares what the other says; but both talk on at any rate, and never fail to part highly disgusted with each other. I knew two ladies, gifted this way, who by accident traveled in a boat twenty miles together, in which short journey they were both so extremely tired of one another, that they could never after mention each other’s name with any temper, or be brought in company together, but retained a mutual aversion which could never be worn out.
The contrary fault to this, and almost as disobliging, is that of seeming wholly unconcerned in conversation, and bearing no other part in the discourse than a no or yes sometimes, or an hem, or perhaps a nod only. This inattention and indifference appears so like disrespect, that it affronts the desire we all possess of being taken notice of and regarded, and makes the company of those who practice it tiresome and insipid. Such is the vanity of mankind, that minding what others say is a much surer way of pleasing them than talking well our selves.
Another error very common and highly disagreeable, is to be ever speaking of our selves and our own affairs. What is it to the company we fall into whether we quarrel with our servants, whether our children are forward and dirty, or what we intend to have for dinner to morrow? The sauciness of a Negro, the prattle of a child, the spoiling a suit of clothes, the expenses of housekeeping, or the preparation for a journey, may be to ourselves matters of great importance, as they occasion us pain or pleasure; but wherein are strangers concerned, or what amusement can they possibly receive from such accounts? Opposite to this, but not less troublesome, is the impertinent inquisitiveness of some people which is ever prying into and asking ten thousand questions about the business of others. To search after and endeavor to discover secrets, is an unpardonable rudeness; but what makes this disposition worse, it is usually attended with an ill-natured, ungenerous, and mischievous desire of exposing and aggravating the mistakes a
nd infirmities of others. People of this turn are the pest of society, and become both feared and hated. On these two heads it may be useful always to remember, that we never ought to trouble people with more of our own affairs than is needful for them to know, nor enquire farther into theirs than themselves think fit to tell us.
Story-telling is another mistake in conversation, which should be avoided by all who intend to please. It is impossible to hear a long insipid trifling tale, void of wit or humor, drawn in by neck and shoulders, and told merely for the sake of talking, without being uneasy at it. Besides, people this way given are apt to tell the same string of stories, with all their rambling particulars, again and again over; without considering, that whatsoever pleasure themselves may find in talking, their hearers wish their tongues out. Old folks are most subject to this error, which is one chief reason their company is so often shunned.
Another very disagreeable error, is, a spirit of wrangling and disputing, which some perpetually bring with them into company: insomuch, that say whatever you will, they’ll be sure to contradict you: and if you go about to give reasons for your opinion, however just they be, or however modestly proposed, you throw them into rage and passion. Though, perhaps, they are wholly unacquainted with the affair, and you have made yourself master of it, it is no matter, the more ignorant they are you still find them the more positive, and what they want in knowledge they endeavor to supply by obstinacy, noise and fury: and when you press hard upon them, instead of argument they fly to personal reproaches and invectives. Thus every trifle becomes a serious business, and such people are continually involved in quarrels.
Raillery is a part of conversation, which to treat of fully would require a whole paper; but now, I have only room to observe that it is highly entertaining or exceedingly disobliging, according as it is managed, and therefore we ought to use it with all the caution possible. Natural infirmities, unavoidable misfortunes, defects, or deformities of any kind, should never be the subject of it, for then it is not only impertinent, but affronting and inhuman. It’s like salt, a little of which in some cases gives a relish, but if thrown on by handfuls, or sprinkled on things at random, it spoils all. Raillery supposes wit; but agreeable as wit is, when it takes a wrong turn it becomes dangerous and mischievous. When wit applies it self to search into, expose, and ridicule the faults of others, it often inflicts a wound that rankles in the heart, and is never to be forgiven. To rally safely, and so as to please, it is requisite that we perfectly know our company: its not enough that we intend no ill, we must be likewise certain what we say shall be taken as we intend it; otherwise, for the sake of a jest we may lose a friend, and make an inveterate enemy. I shall say no more on this head, but that we ought to use it sparingly; and whatever opportunities may offer of showing our parts this way, so soon as any body appears uneasy at it, and receives it with a grave face, both good manners and discretion advise to change the subject for something else more harmless.