Which Theory is TRUE??: A New Proposal

Conflict theory, functionalism, feminism, exchange theory, social learning theory...with all of the frameworks that govern people's view of society, one might wonder in a Joseph Smith sort of way which of all of these frameworks is true?

First of all, theory does not need to be "true" to be "useful" - there is not, for example, an actual giant invisible hand that governs and balances the forces in a free market economy - it's just a shortcut, a framework to explain how things work and to predict what will happen to the economy. It's a useful metaphor.

Similarly, there is no actual Maslow pyramid of needs inside of every person, there is no male-led war against women, there is no giant functional organism into which every member of society fits together, and Piaget did not build any actual concrete stages that children grow into or from. These are different theoretical paradigms that help us make sense of the world and answer questions and figure out what to do. All of these theories, like metaphors used to illustrate a point, have strengths and weaknesses, making some more helpful than others. More importantly, the implications for those who use these lenses are real and measurable.

For example: Functionalism - believing that everything has a purpose and that everyone has a place can discourage change and justify horrible inequality and social conditions. Exchange theory supports self-centeredness through the acceptance that everyone is entirely motivated by self interest. Conflict theory assumes oppression and discrimination in every social interaction and leads to war and demonization of other groups. Eugenics was about seeing all behavior as a product of one's genes and led directly to the Holocaust. So how you interpret the world leads to certain actions, and it also dictates what behavior you see as good, bad, necessary or foolish.

Bad theoretical frameworks may be to blame for much of the evil in the world. In fact, as my husband has coined "White Hat syndrome" or what I call "Darth Vaderism", we sometimes forget that real life "bad guys" usually don't realize they're bad! They act out of a mental framework that makes their behavior seem righteous or at least justifiable (Hitler: wiping out members of "inferior races" might seem like the right thing to do if you believe "racial impurity" is causing all of society's ills). When frameworks affect groups, they are called culture. This probably explains why missionaries have more success in Peru than in Greece: every culture includes assumptions and values about God, individual privacy, Christianity, America, etc that make the individuals in that society more or less receptive to the Gospel.

So paradigms are clearly important! And until we know all things, God recognizes that we will make mistaken assumptions (like the Brother of Jared, assuming that God did not have a body, or Mary, assuming that she couldn't have a baby). But while we struggle through our inevitable mortal misunderstandings, is there a BEST paradigm? One that is CLOSEST to God's? I've been railing against conflict theory and encouraging symbolic interactionism for a long time, because of the pros and cons I perceive in those - but is symbolic interactionism the best way to view society? Which theories are the MOST useful, in God's eyes? Or should we be looking for something different altogether?

If our goal is to organize truth in a way that is similar to God's, the first glaring error we should acknowledge is that none of these social theories acknowledge a higher power, eternal existence, or any kind of overarching plan. They merely seek to describe and explain what is going on the visible world, right now, between individuals and in the world around us. But without the overarching truth of God's plan, we are easily "tossed to and fro" and "carried about by every wind of doctrine", or whichever philosophy of men "seems right". This week I even had my diet app describe different theories around eating - vegan, keto, intermittent fasting - list the pros and cons of each, and suggest that we pick whichever one worked best for us. Works best? Seems right? Is that the strongest argument we can hang our mental hats on?

You see, the problem with the philosophies of men is that because they do not include God in their framework, they are all flawed. There will always be elements of the human experience that they can't explain, or that they get wrong, and therefore they include implications and recommendations that are also wrong (wrong as in, untrue, and wrong as in, wicked).

How do we build a more relevant, useful, true framework that helps more accurately answer questions about individuals and society by also including the role of God and His plan? Or in other words, what is the pair of lenses that God wants us to be looking through? What glasses should we wear in order to see things how God sees them? Here are some experiences that led to my epiphany this morning:

As a new mom, I worked part time as a research consultant for the American Families of Faith project at BYU. We were studying interfaith couples - couples that come from different religious backgrounds - and how they form strong families. We interviewed lots of couples and I read lots of books about how these couples raise their children. They are generally introduce their children to both religions, often encourage them to try both and see which one works for them (again with the "seems right" approach). But the overarching unspoken assumption of these families which is never mentioned is this: In order to be satisfied with this approach, you must assume that there is no way to come to know actual truth; that once again, God is not part of the equation; that religion, for the most part, is a lifestyle choice, like a diet, that we choose because it makes sense to us and therefore works for us - to give us guidance about how to behave, to provide explanations and answer about life's tough questions.

The minute you decide (consciously or not) that religion is something created and executed by men, you've written God out of the universe. When your church is something that needs your criticism, or even your critical analysis, your insights - when you feel the need to correct church leaders or contextualize and downplay their direction, you have decided that you are the grownup in the room, and not God. In other words, you view yourself in the role of an adult, not as a child.

Story number two: My sister-in-law, who teaches first grade, once had a student raise her hand in the middle of an unrelated class activity and say "I have an important question for the whole class!" - when allowed to speak, she said with sincere, tender anxiety, "What if Chewy eats BB8??!!" 

The question was irrelevant and funny, but the intention behind it was not. No amount of grownup comforting could help. She was genuinely concerned for BB8's welfare (I can't believe I just used a possessive apostrophe for a number). My brother, on retelling the story, commented that sometimes our very heartfelt questions to the Lord may sound like this little kid's question did to her teacher. When we see the big picture, some of our concerns we will see were simply irrelevant!

This story provided a helpful metaphor to explain our relationship to God, and to truth. Both of these stories use a framework to illustrate the importance of viewing ourselves as children, rather than adults, when understanding the workings of God. Metaphor, paradigm, framework...hmm...

What if we created a "Child of God" theory?

What if we used a lens through which we viewed individuals and society was not about consumers, or power players, or communicators, but as children? Children of God, specifically?

While this may not answer every question about society or how to solve many of the pressing social problems we have, choosing a theoretical framework that frames people in terms of children of God includes a number of helpful assumptions:

First of all, it assumes our need to take an appropriately subservient role to the One who is all-knowing and all-powerful - He gets it, and He's got this. This aligns with Jesus' and King Benjamin's counsel to "become as little children." We acknowledge that there are many things that we don't know, and that answers will eventually be given and all injustices will be righted. Our subservient role allows us to take prophetic direction without needing to see "where it leads", and without stressing about why it was given. We assume that all direction is given because we are children of God - and that a God who loves us always acts in a way that will promote our happiness and eternal progression.

Secondly, the lens of children of God assume individual divine nature and worth, focuses on our eternal identity and our important responsibilities in this life. This identity encourages loving and responsible action.

Finally, this perspective reminds us that the people around us are similarly divine, and therefore deserving of our respect and support. We don't need the framework of feminism (which establishes equality as a balance of power) in order to establish equality - if we are all children of God then we are equal by nature. If we are children of God, then everyone has something important to contribute, a voice to be heard, and needs that we need to address - as James Farrell puts it in the Anatomy of Peace, needs that are not above or below our own but equal in reality and validity. 

By adopting this framework, we are given a measuring stick against which to compare other theories and frameworks. We could ask ourselves: do the assumptions of _____ theory align with the truth that I am a child of God? That we are children of God? For every theory - the problems it focuses on, the solutions it points to - does it align with God's laws and the truth He has revealed? We may have to reject some theories in order to prioritize this truth. Europeans who chose to hide Jews from the Nazis may have also been raised to seen the world through the lens of eugenics and racial superiority, but they chose to put FIRST their framework of others as children of God, and consequently put first their first responsibility to love and protect everyone. Similarly, whatever justifications were used for slavery may have been very persuasive, but Quakers and other abolitionists rejected whatever arguments may have kept them from viewing and treating others as children of God. 

I hope that promoting "Children of God" theory as a social framework as well as a spiritual one will provide important perspective for Christian social scientists as well as consumers of science. How we view society impacts our thoughts and actions - and if we begin with this framework (or, as Elder Hafen called it, the "eternal perspective" or Elder Anderson the "eye of faith"), the issues we care about will have new meaning, problems will have new context, and solutions will be clearer. We will be able to throw away things that are of no use to us and imagine new ways of addressing society's ills. Furthermore, as I said earlier, social scientists who are not of our faith can test and adopt this framework as helpful without necessarily worrying about whether or not it is true. I encourage everyone to do so, knowing personally that someday the assumptions of this theory will be known as truth.