In the second half of the 19th century, social sciences in the United States were directly related to the reformist movement and the improvement of social life. "The "Social Science Movement", which was formed in 1885 into the American Association of Social Science, was a typical attempt for the end of the 19th century to "apply science" to the solution of social problems without resorting to explicit tactical means of political activity. In short, it was an attempt to turn the problems and difficulties of the lower class into a subject of public concern from the middle class.
By the beginning of the 20th century, this movement had become obsolete. It lost all radicalism in the middle-class reformist ideologies; its desire for general well-being became a highly specialized form of social work within the framework of charitable organizations, children's organizations, and support for prison reform. But the American Association of Social Science has spawned a number of professional associations, and later academic social science disciplines.
Thus, the reformist sociology of the middle class gave rise, on the one hand, to academic disciplines and, on the other hand, to more specific and organized activities aimed at public welfare. This split, however, did not lead to moral neutrality and scientific sterility in academic disciplines.
In the United States, liberalism has been and continues to be the common political denominator of virtually all social studies, as well as the source of all public rhetoric and ideology. This widely recognized fact is explained by the known historical conditions and, probably, first of all, by the absence of feudalism, i.e. the aristocratic basis for the anti-capitalist elite and intellectuals. The liberalism of classical political economy, which still has a formative impact on the views of influential groups of the business elite, does not leave the political arena; even the authors of the most sophisticated economic opuses remain deeply committed to the idea of balance or balance.
Liberalism has had a particular impact on sociology and political science. Unlike their European predecessors, American sociologists are more inclined to study a single empirical detail, a single problem of people's lives over a period of time. In short, they dissipate their attention. According to the "democratic theory of knowledge", they assumed that all facts were created equal. Moreover, they insisted that any social phenomenon must have a large number of tiny reasons.
This, so to speak, "pluralistic causation" is very convenient for a liberal policy of "gradual" reforms. In fact, the idea that the causes of social events are inevitably numerous, fragmented, and insignificant in isolation, easily fits into what can be called liberal practicality. If the history of American sociology is characterized by a single orientation, it is certainly a propensity for scattered research, the accumulation of individual facts, and adherence to the dogma of the plurality of causes of social phenomena. This is what liberal practicalism is all about as a style of social research. For if each thing is conditioned by incalculable "factors", then we should be extremely cautious in any practical action we take.
We have to take into account a lot of details, and therefore we are advised to bring the reform started in one small area and see what happens before we undertake further reform. And, of course, we should not be dogmatists and plan too broad a plan of action: in a river where everything interacts with everything, we should enter with patience, knowing that we do not yet know and may never know the diversity of its causes. While studying the direct life activity of people, we have to take into account a lot of small reasons; in order to act intelligently, as practical people, we have to be slow reformers, making improvements first in one sphere of life, then - in another.
