the macro-micro problem

In the social sciences, we have a macro-micro problem. This problem crops up in all kinds of places and studies, and it's basically this: why do society-wide phenomenon cause only a few actors to shift behavior? For example, consider the problem of suicide bombers. We can look for macro-level phenomena to explain their behavior, relying upon cultural or economic explanations. These explanations often do have some weight to them. The problem is that not everyone in a given culture or economic class becomes a suicide bomber. In fact, the percentage of those who do is really quite small, almost infinitesimal in terms of probability. Thus, our macro causes can't be linked definitively to micro, or individual, behavior. We can explain either, but we can't really explain both. (In some ways this is, of course, a comfort, since we would probably prefer that our behavior be somewhat unpredictable, at least if we would like to avoid totalitarianism altogether.)
I was thinking about this issue this morning because I was reading an article on string theory. It struck me that social scientists are facing a similar problem as physicists have since Einstein. The puzzler has been how to reconcile quantum mechanics, which explains the behavior of atoms, with Einstein's theory of relativity, which describes the behavior of the universe. See? A micro-macro chasm.

Now, string theory may bridge that gap, or at least, that is it's much vaunted promise. The idea of string theory, very, very generally, is that the universe is not made up of individual points (atoms) but rather of strings. It seems to me that these are strings of probability or potentiality, so individual particles such as electrons or quarks are actually only different ways for strings to vibrate. (Posts on string theory should be written after coffee, but I wanted to get this down). This would explain why, for example, no quark is found by itself. A string cannot have only one end.

What if our human societies behave much like this? What if we need an explanation like string theory, which evolved in order to explain the strong force that binds and holds quarks together? What are our human strings? What is the force that binds us? And on what order do we vibrate? And, if, as string theorists believe, there are many more dimensions to the universe than are apparent to us, what dimensions of human society are we not registering, as observers of it?

As an aside, this is my favorite quote from the article, because I'd love someone to take the word "strings" out and replace it with my name: "Strings seduced many physicists with their mathematical elegance, but they had some problems, like requiring 26 dimensions and a plethora of mysterious particles that did not seem to have anything to do with quarks or the strong force." Yes, she was a lovely girl, but she had some problems, like requiring 26 dimensions...