Here are the basics of Pluralism: it is the mainstream view of democracies.
It believes in society there is a variety of interest groups that pressure the state, but their interests cannot be presumed in advance and none has a fundamental advantage in the political process.
Pluralism says the democratic state is in principle neutral with respect to conflicts in society.
The theory believes politicians gain needed public support by making decisions popular with as many people as possible.
The philosophy believes everybody gets their voices heard, although those groups with louder voices (i.
e.
, stronger preferences or better organization) get heard more often.
Here is what Pluralism says about society: There is no dominant class in society.
There are no fundamental social cleavages that generate antagonistic interests about political issues.
There may be elites in society but they have different, often conflicting, preferences.
This collection of diverse elite preferences does not add up to a shared worldview or set of interests that elites would try to impose on the state against the preferences of ordinary people.
If there is social conflict over policies that would affect the distribution of economic resources, it does not have to map onto political divisions or be reflected in state institutions.
Workers may be disadvantaged economically, but not politically.
Social groups that are most affected by a policy and are easier to organize have more influence on the government; where interests are more dispersed (e.
g.
, consumers) there are collective action problems involved in forming political support.
Here is what Pluralism says about the state: In democracies, politicians have to compete for public support.
Citizens have roughly the same resources to use to affect democratic politics.
That means powerful groups in society will not have systematic privilege in politics.
There are multiple centers of power which are fluid or shifting.
After the fact, you can see who in society had more power to influence the state by observing who participated in the democratic process.
The most influential groups are ones that are better organized and have stronger preferences; this does not mean they have more political power.
Here is Pluralism's Liberal tradition: Thomas Hobbes thought that human nature made for a "war of all against all" and so people agreed to a state with absolute power in order to ensure social order.
John Locke viewed people as more reasonable and argued that in a "state of nature" they would agree to a "social contract" where the state governs legitimately but only if it protects their property and elicits their consent.
Unlike Hobbes' "Leviathan" state, Locke thought the state should be limited and not interfere with private property, which exists "prior" to the state.
For Adam Smith, because people were rational and wanted to improve their welfare, they would spontaneously form the market, which would bring the greatest good for the greatest number if the state did not interfere.
In this liberal tradition, the democratic state is (and should be) based on the collective will of the people but kept limited and separate from the economy; civil society is made of voluntary groups since the economic structure does not generate class divisions.
Here is Pluralism's methodology: Empirical evidence supporting pluralist theory would be a correspondence between public opinion and policy outcomes.
Pluralism is "empiricist" in that it confines itself to what is directly observable; unlike the other theories, it does not try to go "deeper" by theorizing the social relations that enable and constrain the state.
How would pluralists explain cases where the state seems to act against the interests of the majority of society?