The Social Science Theoretical Dilemma and the Christian Truth

The schools of thought in social science can roughly divided into those who believe that the individual's consciously perceived action has a direct impact on society, and those who believe that an individual has only little or an indirect impact on society. For easy understanding, one is forgiven to understand the former as micro-sociologists and the latter as functionalists. Twenty-first century thinkers however, like Bourdieu and Foucault, try to straddle somewhere in between with complex theories that make it impossible to classify them into either school of thought, so are left pretty much in the middle.

However, the dichotomy of institution versus individual was never really overcome. Even as some of us have noble aspirations to change the world, we are divided along that premise. Are we to work our way up through the government ministries and eventually make our way to global institutions such as the United Nations, World Bank or other high-level organizations so as to provide our solutions to make the dream of a Kyoto Protocol or a Copenhagen come true?

Some of us might disagree, and argue that the real work is at the grass root level, found in civil society, to empathize with those on the ground. To live with the poor is where we can eventually find the solution to world poverty and hunger.

Both are not wrong, but neither are both truly effective. Theoretically, given our limited wisdom and communication abilities, we have reached a deadlock. Or have we?


This blog post proposes another perspective that works on a similar dichotomy, but out of the stifling box of political science and sociology. Above the global and national institutions with their own petty interests and conflicting goals is one institution with a history longer than any man has ever created. Christians call this institution the "Kingdom of God". Below civil society, grassroot movements and the individual lies a subject of a unit commonly misunderstood to be smaller than the individual. Christians call this unit the "soul".

In social science, we cannot call an individual an institution, though late thinkers like Foucault will argue that it is thoroughly possible to institutionalize the individual. But one forgets that Foucault also argues that the individual must rebel against the external institution so as to gain his freedom from the institutionalization that has taken place within. All pretty understandable, but not quite so believable, and becomes extremely confusing when extended from there onwards.

The new proposal instead is based on one "strange" logic.

Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you." (Luke 17: 20-21)

The Kingdom of Heaven was built to contain souls, but a soul can also yet contain the Kingdom of Heaven.


With this logic in place, we overcome the "size" problem of earlier thinkers i.e. institution is always bigger than the individual, as well as the confusing logic of later thinkers i.e. the impossible-to-measure "degree of institutionalization".


Answering the question of how we can change the world suddenly becomes extremely simple.


It begins simultaneously deep within, and at the same time, in the heavens above.


We Christians call that process "prayer". And boy, have we changed the world too many times to count!




What truth, when our Lord said, "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God"! After all, isn't it in poverty that we pray more and trust more with fewer distractions and worldly expectations in our heart? -Valentino Casanova