xmenlerican religion, too, has succumbed to the numbersngame. The most popular and “successM” denominations arenthose most impressed by quantification. They exclaim fromnthe church tops their impressive figures on attendance, conversion,nand building constructioa Dial a prayer and be countednfor Jesus! The Saturday religious pages of most newspapers arenoften, at best, tasteless, fronically, a society unrivaled in numericalnchurch attendance and involvement has failed in thenqualitative sphere. Despite the impressive numbers and resources,nit has failed to produce a Cardinal Newman, a Pascal, anKierkegaard. Where are its Bachs and Palestrinas? Where arenits saints, mystics, and scholars? Where is its spiritually inspirednarchitecture? It has failed to produce a “high” culture motivatednby Christian spirituality. Religion has become primarilyna social phenomenon—good for the children and business,ntolerated and indeed encouraged because its benefits arenmeasurable. Should our political and economic structures collapsenand our people taste adversity, it is doubtful whether ournchurches would be able to sustain our cultural heritage, asnonce occurred in Ireland and Greece, and is currendy occurringnin Poland.nThe American business world seems characterized by bigness,nuniformity, and conformity, leaving little room for tradition,ncharm, or character. Appeals to the common denominatorn—give the people what they want; will it sell—^are the majornconcerns. There seems to be little pride in good workmanshipnor service. Gone are the old grocery and drugstores that servednmultiple purposes and were neighborhood assets. Gone, too,nare the traditional bookstores that encouraged conversationnand browsing. In virtually every area, the supermarket mentalityndominates and caters only to speed and convenience.nQuantity prevails over quality.nOur man-made environment also reflects our hierarchy ofnvalues. Sadly, litde of our architectural past survives the bulldozer.nEdmund Burke perceptively commented that those \iionlose the sense of continuity will be akin to the flies of the summer.nBut in today’s world much of the structural beauty isnravished in favor of utilitarian considerations. The result is anlack of roots, tradition, and continuity in our world of numbers.nEach generation seems destined to rebuild our cities and thennbemoan what was sacrificed. We move like flights of bees fromnarea to area, dwelling to dwelling, job to job—always seekingnnew opportunities and securities. Upon return to our traditionalnterrain we are shocked to find litde that is recognizable.nThe less said about mass popular entertainment the better.nThe unending TV gladiatorial exhibitions labeled athletics, thensituation comedies and money shows with their piped-innapplause and laughter, radio with its barrage of noise and advertisement—^thesenentertain the nation. Survey research prescribesnwhat is marketable, while the producers are well awarenwhich sectors can be ridiculed—e.g., WASP’s, the South,nEvangelicals—^and which are sacrosanct. Ultimately all mustn• QUALITATIVE LIVING IN A QUANTITATIVE WORLD •nnnHistory of Literature in AmericanPanulv. :iii ullntlilxTiil Siind;iv ”niaiia/ine,” lo wlik’h llif highestnNlandarils (i! iiUL-llci’tualitv an- rqircM-iiU-d b tlic likes ol’ .lfssrs.nJack .ndfi-snI’lilii/ir I’ri/i-.v was surely om- of i]ie (iiii.siaiiLliiig.iiu-ikMii [V)its t>l’nhis liim-. .lirciriiin:ili’l’. lieM:i.s ni;IiliL-di-pres.sive Willi :l supine liilluTn:IIKI JiliiiiilhiT..Miicli<)l’liis;Kliili lili’\»ss)x-iil inanclciiiliifns:uii[.ii’iLiiiis. Ik- hinl iliree wiL-s: iJii- iu>veli.M )c;ui .stiiionl. whiise n<)M’nhe twice liroki-: llie essayist IJi/aixth Ilanlwiek. to wlidiii he iiiarialilynretiiriieiJ:ilier)><)iit>with hisiiii.stress(.:s::uK!I.aily Caroline lllaek-nWUIHI. an AnKlo-lrish heiress, ror iiirther details ol’his lornientecl life,nre.iil ‘Kolicrt Ijjwell.’ hy Ian llaniilton. an exeelleni liiiigraphy. L:nbow to the powerfiil rating system that dictates survival ornoblivion. Supposedly, the people get what they want.nAmerican “high” culture presents an ambivalent picture. Innterms of numbers, resources, and dynamism there is notablenaccomplishment. Considering our population and geographicnsize there is impressive symphonic, opera, and baUet activity.nBut, as with religion, one might inquire about motivation andnquality. How creative are we? Have we moved significantiynbeyond the imitational? How many of our works are worthy ofnexport? Where is the operatic and symphonic music that hasnattracted an international audience? When will one see Americannoperas performed at Covent Garden and La Scala? Are wenbut a European dependency in the realm of “high” culture—nimpressive in numbers, less impressive in quality and impact?nJs we move into the computer-automation ^e, the demandsnof quantification will become even more insistent. Thentechnology necessary for mass quantification moves ahead. Asnnever before, each person will be accorded numbered statusnand litde will escape the realm of numbers. How might one resistnand preserve some personal integrity? Dissent, as with mynacademic friend, is possible, but diflScult, and open only to thosenvsolling to bear the consequences. Prerequisites are (1) nervenand a willingness to take a chance; (2) strong conviction ofnone’s inner values; (3) lack of concern for the opinions of othersnabout success/failure; and (4) a willingness to accept a lowernstandard of living. Those who will dissent are the salt of thenearth and the hope for some future revitaUzation that wiU restorenquantity and quality to their respective places in the hierarchynof values. For crude, vulgar, and uniform as our democraticutilitariannpolity might be, still the hope of change and sense ofnthe alternatives prevents despair.n—DanielJ. O’NeilnDr. O’Neil is professor of political science at the University ofnArizonan5nOctober 1983n