People often use cultural pluralism, multiculturalism and interculturalism as though they mean the same thing. They overlap, but they do different work. As always, definitions matter because the language we use shapes what governments make policies about, what institutions provide, what and how media report, how residents understand our part of the world and how communities are (or aren't) brought together.

 

As you know, I’m a policy writer, program designer and practitioner, not an academic so from my perspective, at their most basic:

 

• Cultural pluralism enables different cultures to coexist.

• Multiculturalism recognises cultural, faith and language diversity and supports that diversity through public policy and institutions.

• Interculturalism moves from coexistence to connection, exchange and shared action.

 

For me, this table is the most useful way to understand how the three definitions relate without turning them into competing and confusing discussions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cultural pluralism starts with the right to retain and express cultural, linguistic and religious identities while belonging to a shared society. It rejects the idea that people must become culturally identical to the dominant population (assimilation). Australian academic Laksiri Jayasuriya described multiculturalism, in one sense, as shorthand for cultural pluralism. He also warned that cultural recognition cannot stop at food, dance and festivals: it must connect with equity, participation and unequal power.[1]

 

Multiculturalism is broader. It can describe the demographic reality of a culturally diverse society, a political commitment to recognition and respect, and the policies through which governments address discrimination, access, equity and participation. In Australia, it developed as an alternative to assimilation and has become part of the way governments understand citizenship, access to services, cultural identity and social cohesion.[2]

 

Interculturalism asks a more active question: what is happening between people? It focuses on interaction, dialogue, mutual learning and shared action.

 

For governments, this means more than the multicultural approach of inviting 1st or 2nd generation Australians into the same room. Interculturalism means specifically creating and designing meaningful and deliberate opportunities for people who would not normally meet, to talk directly with each other, laugh together, gain a better understanding of each other, to work through differences, influence shared institutions, reduce fear of the other, increase innovation, have a shared sense of belonging and use of public space, solve practical problems together and, if all this is done well enough, to become friends.

 

And, most importantly, to do this at every opportunity between all groups of people who live in Australia; 1st and 2nd generation Australians; 3rd+ generation Australians (particularly from Anglo-Celtic-Saxon) backgrounds and First Peoples. Inviting 1st or 2nd generation Australians into the room to talk about policy that affects all Australians is no longer good enough.

 

Again, the definitional difference matters because a municipality may be culturally plural due to people from many culturally diverse communities living there. It may have a strong multicultural framework through language services, equitable access, anti-racism frameworks and support for community organisations.

 

The intercultural questions for government are different: we know we have people from many different cultural, language or faith background but where are people meeting, building trust, shaping decisions and forming relationships across cultural, faith, generational and social differences? What are we, as a government, doing to facilitate this interaction? How much do we want social cohesion in our neighbourhoods and how much of what we do are we prepared to review and change in order to achieve it?

 

This is where the practical outcomes can be seen.

 

A government can translate information, fund multicultural organisations and hold successful cultural events, yet residents may still live largely alongside one another. Intercultural practice intentionally creates the conditions for people to hear different perspectives, test ideas together and develop relationships that continue beyond a single consultation or event.

 

Intercultural policy agrees with funding multicultural organisations but advocates that this should not happen on every occasion. For example, where there is a festival or event, and where a government wants greater social cohesion as an outcome, there may be a requirement that people from other cultural or faith backgrounds actively partner and are actively involved in organising and conducting the event. No tokenism allowed! Where the involvement of another culture or faith is not possible, there may be a requirement for an intercultural activity to be held such as People are Stories which results in greater interaction and understanding between attendees.

 

That interaction must also be designed carefully. Bringing diverse people together is not enough if some voices carry more authority, some participants do not feel safe to speak or the outcome has already been decided. Intercultural practice needs equitable participation, adherence to human rights, attention to power and opportunities for people to influence what happens next. Without that foundation, contact can remain superficial or, worse, create ill will and mistrust rather than building trust and belonging. In practice, facilitators without intercultural skills can lead to outcomes counterproductive to social cohesion.

 

Reading through the literature, the academic dividing line is a bit blurry at times. Geoffrey Brahm Levey argues that dialogue and interaction can already sit within a strong form of multiculturalism.[3] Fethi Mansouri and Tariq Modood similarly argue that multiculturalism and interculturalism are complementary rather than competing approaches.[4] Glenda Ballantyne’s research on Australian intercultural cities also shows that interculturalism can enrich multiculturalism, although combining them may be difficult and requires more than adding a few activities to an existing policy. [5]

 

This is why I describe interculturalism as the 'verb' that activates multiculturalism.

 

Multiculturalism is Australia's 'state of being.' It's what we are, what we always have been, and what we always will be. Multiculturalism provides the recognition, rights and equity of everyone in Australia (accepting they are experienced differently by different people). Cultural pluralism protects the continuing expression of difference. Interculturalism turns diversity into relationships, shared learning and action.

 

Whilst we are also starting to understand the trickiness of language descriptions for people (I’ll write another article about that) Australians are asked to appreciate that we live in a multicultural society where everyone is valued for their culture, faith, nationality regardless of where they were born. However, for twenty years or so, we have increasingly experienced the juxtaposition of government funding being available only to ‘grassroots’ multicultural communities, again creating the 'they get more than us' line for politicians, media and disgruntled Australians. Fundamentally, a multicultural approach to separating people based on ethnicity, country of birth, colour, faith or other 'difference' and government's desired use of the term to describe all Australians and the type of society we live in, creates an inherent dilemma for achieving social cohesion.

 

The danger of political discussions about a multicultural or culturally plural Australia may be similar, but the danger of not discussing intercultural approaches to policy, funding, service and program design and implementation has the consequence of not setting the foundation for discovering shared national goals and values, understanding, empathy, mutual respect and kindness for each other.

 

UNESCO is the best summary for my teaching about interculturalism: “Intercultural dialogue, when supported by an enabling environment, has the capacity to achieve peace and develop sustainable societies as it can be implemented anywhere and remain effective. Through its capacity to support spaces and opportunities for dialogue it builds social cohesion and trust among diverse groups, upholds human rights, and contributes to conflict prevention and resolution.” [6]

 

Diversity describes Australia, but connection across cultures does not happen by itself. It has to be thought about, written into policy and facilitated if social inclusion AND social cohesion can be achieved in our neighbourhoods, states and territories and across Australia.

 

An intercultural approach to policy, practice, political discussion and program design in Australia is the only way social cohesion can be achieved.

​

​

​

 

[1] Jayasuriya, L. (1985). Multiculturalism in Australia. Ethnos, (40), 3–4. Retrieved 18 August 2026, from https://www.multiculturalaustralia.edu.au/doc/jayasuriya_2.pdf

 

[2] Elias, A., Mansouri, F., & Sweid, R. (2021). Public attitudes towards multiculturalism and interculturalism in Australia. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 22(3), 1063–1084. Retrieved 18 August 2026, from https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-020-00784-z

 

[3] Levey, G. B. (2012). Interculturalism vs. multiculturalism: A distinction without a difference? Journal of Intercultural Studies, 33(2), 217–224. Retrieved 18 August 2026, from https://doi.org/10.1080/07256868.2012.649529

 

[4] Mansouri, F., & Modood, T. (2021). The complementarity of multiculturalism and interculturalism: Theory backed by Australian evidence. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 44(16), 1–20. Retrieved 18 August 2026, from https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2020.1713391

 

[5] Ballantyne, G. (2025). Intercultural cities: Enriching Australian multiculturalism? Journal of Intercultural Studies, 46(1), 96–116. Retrieved 18 August 2026, from https://doi.org/10.1080/07256868.2024.2348539

 

[6] United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (n.d.). e-Platform on intercultural dialogue. Retrieved 21 August 2026, from https://www.unesco.org/interculturaldialogue/en