Intercultural Cities: Enriching Australian Multiculturalism?

ABSTRACT

Since its inception in 2008, the Council of Europe’s Intercultural Cities program (ICC) has been gaining traction in increasingly diverse parts of the world. In 2017 and 2018 respectively, the City of Ballarat and the City of Melton became the first Australian cities to join the network. This ‘intercultural turn’ in local government signals a significant development in Australian diversity policy. To date, however, it has received limited scholarly attention. To help address this gap, this paper draws on interviews and focus groups with the architects of the intercultural turn to investigate the policy motivations that propelled it and the policy shifts that it brought about. The paper also engages with policy and theoretical debates about the nature and scope of interculturalism as an approach to diversity policy that may transcend some of the limitations of multiculturalism. Ultimately, the paper argues that interculturalism offers a valuable contribution to Australia’s multicultural policy framework, but that combining the two perspectives may be more complicated than prevailing views suggest.

KEYWORDS:

• multiculturalism
• interculturalism
• cities
• Australia
• Ballarat
• Melton
• local government

Introduction

The much-discussed global retreat from multiculturalism in the twenty-first century has fostered attempts to rethink pro-diversity discourse and policy (Mansouri and Modood 2020). Among these, ‘interculturalism’ – based on the principle of interaction and dialogue across cultural boundaries – has gained traction in many parts of the world. While some variants of interculturalism have had only localised influence – most notably in Quebec and Latin America – the Council of Europe’s Intercultural Cities program (ICC) has resonated more widely (White 2018). Established in 2008 to assist EU cities develop intercultural approaches, it has been taken up in increasingly diverse regions including Quebec, the Middle East, the Americas, Asia and, since 2017, Australia. In that year, the City of Ballarat became the first Australian city to join the ICC and, in following years, three others have joined the ICC network and more are considering it.

The adoption of interculturalism in these cities signals a significant development in Australian diversity policy. The shift is also surprising in a country that has been comparatively immune to the antimulticultural backlash in other parts of the world and in which multiculturalism remains synonymous with ‘diversity policy’ (Levey 2018). To date, however, this new direction has received limited attention in the scholarly literature. To help address this gap, this paper offers an examination of the policy motivations of the architects of the ‘intercultural turn’ along with the changes in policy they fostered in the first two Australian cities to join the ICC. In doing so, it complements the handful of studies that have canvassed intercultural initiatives in Australian local governments (Mansouri et al. 2007, Mansouri and Modood 2020, Dekker and Mullan 2021).

The paper also addresses ongoing policy and theoretical debates about diversity policy in the current period. Despite its relative success, calls to rethink Australian multiculturalism have been growing (Collins et al. 2011, Levey 2018, Colic-Peisker and Farquharson 2011), and until recently, interculturalism has not figured prominently in these debates. This paper offers preliminary observations on how interculturalism could contribute to this project. The paper also addresses the political-philosophical debate about the relationship between multiculturalism and interculturalism and how, if at all, they could be combined. The Australian experience, where interculturalism is being introduced within an established multicultural policy framework, offers a new and illuminating vantage point on this debate.

The paper unfolds as follows. The first background section offers an overview of the theoretical debate about the relative merits and potential relationship of multiculturalism and interculturalism, the Council of Europe’s Intercultural Cities program, the Australian policy context and debates about the way forward for Australian multiculturalism.

The following section examines the policy motivations underpinning the adoption of the ICC model and the shifts in policy direction they prompted in the Australian cities of Ballarat and Melton. This section draws on data from two ongoing studies: interviews with four policymakers who wrote and implemented the first intercultural strategies in these cities, conducted as part of the Intercultural Cities in Australia study¹; and from focus groups with policymakers and diversity stakeholders conducted as part of the International Intercultural Cities Comparative Study.²

The next section situates these findings within the political-philosophical debates prompted by the growing traction of interculturalism and considers their relevance for debates about Australian multiculturalism. The paper argues that interculturalism offers a potentially valuable contribution to Australia’s diversity policy ecology, but that combining the two perspectives will be more complicated than prevailing views suggest.

Background

Interculturalism and Multiculturalism

Interculturalism has a long history in the spheres of communication and education, as a basis for inter-faith dialogue and as a political basis for international relations and negotiation, where it has operated as a ‘reactive’ political mechanism for conflict resolution primarily at the state-to-state level (Mansouri et al. 2017, Zapata-Barrero and Mansouri 2022). Over the past two decades, interculturalism has also been taken up as a ‘proactive’ policy strategy seeking to enhance people-to-people relations in diverse settings, primarily at the local level (Zapata-Barrero and Mansouri 2022).

Mansouri and Modood (2020) have identified three main politico-geographic variants of intercultural diversity policy, highlighting how each reflects its particular political contexts. Quebecois interculturalism, with origins in the 1960s, was given more systematic articulation in the 2000s as a reaction to federal Canadian multiculturalism (Bouchard 2011). Western European interculturalism, with origins in UK urban policy thinktanks in the 1990s, was given institutional heft when promoted by the Council of Europe in response to rising anti-immigration and antimulticultural sentiment (CoE 2008a). Less widely known in the Anglophone world, Latin American ‘interculturalidad’ emerged as a rejection of state multiculturalism, associated with colonialism (Avena Koenigsberger 2018).

The emergence of interculturalism as diversity policy in these settings has prompted a wide-ranging political-philosophical literature on the relative merits of multiculturalism and interculturalism. This debate has proceeded on the basis of a broad agreement that multiculturalism, based on the principles of equality and social justice, primarily seeks to secure a political defence of minorities through legal and institutional frameworks, while interculturalism, based on the principle of intercultural dialogue, primarily seeks to foster societal desegregation and social mixing and a sense of belonging for all (Levrau and Loobuyck 2013, Mansouri et al. 2017). Nevertheless, beyond this, there has been wide disagreement about definitions and evaluations of the two perspectives. The multiple variants of each have worked against definitive conclusions on many of the issues raised (Levey 2012). Over time, however, the focus of debate has shifted from whether interculturalism should or could replace multiculturalism (Levrau and Loobuyck 2013) to their potential complementarity.

An oppositional tone in the early phase of the debate has been attributed to the need felt by interculturalists to make a case for their proposed revisions to how diversity is managed in societies in which multiculturalism has prevailed (Mansouri et al. 2017). Prominent interculturalists raised a vison of a ‘post-multiculturalism’, arguing that globalisation, increased mobility and new communication technologies have eroded the relevance of the multicultural approaches developed in an earlier era. They argued that disparities across majority-migrant divides are less clear-cut, identities are increasingly transnational, multi-faceted and fluid and that these developments have fostered the rise of populist, anti-immigrant parties (Cantle 2014, Zapata-Barrero 2017). They argued that in these circumstances tackling racism exclusively through ‘multicultural’ legislation and punitive measures could not fully address the causes of racist attitudes, insular communities and extremist views. They proposed that it was necessary to also create ‘intercultural’ experiential learning opportunities, to recognise the multiplicity and mutability of contemporary identities, to reframe the ‘common public culture’ to focus on common bonds rather than differences and to promote two-way interactions between host communities and newcomers (Cantle 2012, Zapata-Barrero 2017). Conceptually, interculturalists argued that multiculturalism treats cultural minorities as discrete communities mainly interested in identity preservation, where what is needed is a model that allows for cosmopolitan interests and attachments, that promotes exchange and dialogue between diverse groups and is open and forward looking rather than culturally blinkered by the past (Cantle 2014).

Multiculturalists responded with empirical and conceptual arguments. They suggested that in some cases, the term ‘interculturalism’ was being adopted simply as a strategic rebranding of multiculturalism (Meer and Modood 2012, Kymlicka 2012). Modood argued that the new socio-political dynamics and identities pointed to by interculturalists do not ‘analytically capture the full range of contemporary ethnic, religious and national identities’ and therefore that group identification remains a valuable vehicle for social justice (Modood 2014: 303). Multiculturalists also challenged the claims of conceptual novelty and efficaciousness made by interculturalists. Accepting that multicultural policies ‘may be badly designed or implemented’, Meer and Modood (2013: 271) argued that encouraging communication, recognising dynamic identities and promoting unity are also part of some variants of multiculturalism. Above all, however, multiculturalists argued that interculturalism was not a viable alternative to multiculturalism because dialogue and interaction alone cannot provide the protections minorities require. Many concluded that multiculturalism ‘surpasses interculturalism as a political orientation’ (Meer and Modood 2012: 192) because interculturalism’s focus on interaction at the civic level cannot provide the kind of robust protections required to ensure equality for minorities and protect them from discrimination.

Increasingly, however, attention has shifted to complementarities between the two perspectives. The idea that they are compatible and mutually supporting was not absent from the early phase of the debate. Interculturalists recognised the need for anti-racism legislation (Cantle 2012) and multiculturalists recognised the value of promoting intercultural dialogue and recognition (Modood 2017). In the recent phase of debate, the common aims of multiculturalism and interculturalism have been stressed (both are pro-diversity and pro-inclusion) and their different but equally valuable contributions to diversity policy have been emphasised (Levrau and Loobuyck 2013, Mansouri and Modood 2020).

In this phase of the debate, the question of how the two perspectives might be combined has come to the fore. The most common response to this question has been the idea of a policy ‘division of labour’ flowing from the different theoretical frames and objectives of the perspectives. Levrau and Loobuyck (2013) envisage a division of labour in which multiculturalism manages the relationship between minorities and the state and interculturalism focuses on civil society and the attitudes of citizens. Mansouri and Modood (2020: 15) conceptualise the perspectives as ‘operating at different political, personal and spatial levels’ and envision a ‘micro–macro policy and practice complementarity’ where localised encounters through interculturalism can be pursued in the context of supportive multicultural macro policy settings and national narratives. Still, the proponents of this notion have pointed to open questions which remain to be addressed. Mansouri and Modood (2020: 15) caution against expecting ‘perfect complementarity’, raising the question of whether interculturalism might have a contribution to make on the macro level as well as the micro. Conversely, Levrau and Loobuyck (2013) highlight the need to recognise the political and governmental dimensions of interculturalism including the need for governments to promote polices which foster interpersonal relationships in the civic realm.

The Intercultural Cities Program

The Council of Europe’s Intercultural Cities program was established in 2008 after a review of diversity policy prompted by a growing backlash against immigration and multiculturalism across the EU. The review outlined a conceptual framework for an ‘intercultural’ approach to diversity policy based on the argument that multiculturalism’s principle of the recognition of cultural difference is a necessary but insufficient element of cultural diversity policy. Arguing that multiculturalism promotes the preservation of cultural difference over establishing commonalities among different groups, the White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue argued that a ‘pro-active, structured and widely shared effort in managing cultural diversity’ based on the principle of intercultural dialogue is also required (CoE 2008a: 13).

The framework rejected multiculturalism’s ‘groupist’ conception of cultural diversity because it ‘single[s] out cultures and communities and categorise[s] and stigmatise[s] them in a static position and contributes to the undermining of the rights of individuals – and, in particular, women – within minority communities’ (CoE 2008a: 19). It also rejected what it saw as an assumption that integrating minorities ‘will not ask any serious questions of, or require change by, the majority’ (CoE 2008b: 7). Instead, it emphasised the fluidity of identities in contemporary societies, promoted a more cosmopolitan conception of collective identity and insisted that integration requires adjustments by the host community.

The framework outlined in the White Paper was designed for application in all spheres of society and across all levels of government. However, drawing on urban policy work conducted by the British thinktank Comedia (White 2021) it singled out municipalities as best placed to promote ‘reciprocal recognition in the associational sphere of civic society’ (CoE 2008a: 20). To assist EU cities implement the intercultural strategies and methodologies outlined in the review, the ICC was established as a capacity building and policy-development field program providing expert advice, opportunities for peer learning among cities and a range of resources including guidelines for implementing intercultural strategies and a benchmarking tool known as the ICC Index.

The guidelines emphasised two complementary ideas. The first is that the integration of migrants requires adaption of the host society as well as newcomers. This notion holds that in contemporary societies ‘diversity is the norm’ (CoE 2008b: 7) and that diversity policy must encompass not only newcomers and minorities but also the majority group. The second is that diversity is a collective resource which can drive socio-economic development and innovation in host societies (CoE 2008a). Referred to as the ‘diversity advantage’, this notion seeks to reframe diversity as a source of added value rather than as a threat (White 2021). In addition, the guidelines outlined two methodological strategies seen as key components of the ICC model. The first is a ‘whole of organisation’ or ‘transversal’ approach to policy development processes (White 2018). It promotes the ‘(re)organisation, improvement, development and evaluation of policy processes, so that a … [diversity] perspective is incorporated in all policies at all levels and at all stages, by the actors normally involved in policy making’ (CoE 2015: 12). The second is a ‘whole of society’ or ‘mainstreaming’ approach to programs and services which aims where possible to reach people with a migration background through needs-based policies that also target the general population. It is seen as avoiding the tendency in multiculturalism for diversity policies to be directed primarily towards immigrants or minorities. However, the ICC recognised that targeted services are required in situations where minority groups face structural disadvantages (CoE 2015: 18).

The ICC Index measures intercultural progress in eighteen policy areas across city administrations. Cities collect information about their activities across all services, divisions and departments and the results are analysed by independent experts who offer advice on developing intercultural capacity, mostly by providing examples of good practice from other cities in the network. Undertaking the Index is the primary mechanism through which cities participate in the program and provides opportunities for evaluating intercultural performance, identifying areas for further policy development and measuring change relative to other cities in the network (White 2021).

Over time, the ICC model has been revised in two ways. A new exposition of the model gave equal weight to two principles associated with multiculturalism – recognition of diversity and promoting equality through efforts to combat racism and discrimination – alongside that of interaction and dialogue, defining ‘intercultural integration’ as the simultaneous application of the principles of Diversity, Equality and Interaction (CoE 2015). A further development has been the return to the original aspiration to provide a framework for intercultural integration at all levels of government, underlining the role of cities within a web of relationships with other polities at local, national and supra-national levels (CoE 2015).

Established to assist EU cities develop intercultural approaches, the ICC model has been taken up in increasingly diverse regions including Quebec, the Middle East, the Americas, Asia and, since 2017, Australia. In 2017, Ballarat (in the state of Victoria) became the first Australian city to join the network and the following year Melton (also in Victoria) also joined. Subsequently the City of Maribyrnong (Melbourne, Victoria) and the City of Salisbury (Adelaide, South Australia) joined the network. The City of Logan (Brisbane, Queensland) began the process of joining but did not complete the process. The network currently spans 160 cities globally.

The Australian Policy Context

The Australian diversity policy context is very different from that of the European countries for which the ICC model was initially designed. Australia was the second developed nation to introduce multiculturalism in the postwar period. However, in contrast to Canada’s pioneering multiculturalism which provided a comprehensive framework for dealing with diversity within the nation, Australia’s multiculturalism was created as migration settlement policy (Clyne and Jupp 2011). Moreover, in contrast to Canada’s Multiculturalism Act (Government of Canada 1985), Australian multiculturalism has been ‘a shifting landscape of political debate, policy developments and piecemeal legislative reform’ (Dunn et al. 2001: 2480). A ‘classic liberal’ variant of multiculturalism (Levey 2008), it was based on three pillars: the right to express one’s cultural identity; the right to equality of treatment and opportunity; and the need to develop and utilise the skills and talents of all Australians in the service of economic efficiency (Mansouri et al. 2007, Colic-Peisker and Farquharson 2011).

Over the subsequent 40 years, multiculturalism has become firmly embedded across the nation’s three levels of government. Introduced by the federal government, policy development has overtime been led by state governments which have established their own multicultural agendas, enacted legislation and set up charters, strategic plans, agencies and programs (Moran 2017). Among the initiatives state governments have undertaken is legislation requiring local governments to adopt measures to address the needs of and enable the civic participation of their diverse communities. As a consequence, local governments have become increasingly responsible for the diversity programs and services that interface with end users. They are responsible for three broad categories of multicultural policy: ensuring equitable access to services, through either ethno-specific service agencies or by ensuring that mainstream agencies are responsive to their clients’ culturally diverse needs; detecting and responding to problems with intercommunal relations; and fostering citizenship and symbolic representation through citizens’ participation in the processes of local governance and articulating an inclusive local identity (Dunn et al. 2001).

This multicultural policy framework is widely seen as a success story (Moran 2017, Markus 2018). It is credited with achieving comparatively high levels of social cohesion and low levels of conflict and tension and enjoys high levels of support by the public and, despite some equivocation among conservative politicians, political leaders (Moran 2017, Levey 2018). However, the limited research in the field suggests multicultural policies have been introduced at the local level with varying degrees of success. Reliant on state legislation and funding, local governments are the weakest tier of the tripartite Australian governance structure. They have smaller incomes and fewer powers than in the UK, Canada or the US (Dunn et al. 2001). Dunn et al. (2001) found that budgets are limited and multicultural programs often short-lived and precarious, depending on individuals for their success. They also found that multicultural programs were siloed within local governments and that officers often believe multicultural policy was peripheral to their core functions. Mansouri and Pietsch (2011) also found that local government representatives had a weak understanding of how to achieve the inclusion of migrant communities and of multicultural policy and practices.

Reimagining Australian Multiculturalism

Despite its relative success, there have been growing calls to rethink and revivify Australian multiculturalism. Some commentators have highlighted shifts in Australia’s diversity landscape that have eroded the relevance of the multicultural policy settings that were developed four decades ago. They point out that the emphasis on migrant settlement does not speak to growing cohorts of second-generation Australians or to transnationally connected immigrants (Collins et al. 2011). Nor does it address the changing profile of diversity and diversity issues wrought by Australia’s pivot to skilled migration, underway since the 1990s. Others argue Australian multiculturalism has not sufficiently dealt with a deep vein of racism that stems from the White Australia period (Ang and Stratton 1998, Colic-Peisker and Farquharson 2011). Researchers also highlight inconsistent and lukewarm official attitudes to multiculturalism (Mansouri et al. 2017), a persistent perception that multicultural policies only concern migrants or minorities (Collins et al. 2011, Moran 2017) and the failure of multiculturalism to speak to First Nations Peoples, who resist the implication that they are one minority among many (Moran 2017). Many such critiques point to fundamental weaknesses in the discursive framework underpinning official expositions of Australian multiculturalism. Some argue that it is underpinned by a discourse of ‘tolerance’ that is inherently exclusionary (Hage 1998) and others that the symbol of the ‘mosaic’ promotes an abstract idea of equality that in fact serves to mask the power of the dominant culture (Levey 2008).

To address these problems, critics have proposed a more cosmopolitan approach to diversity policy (Collins et al. 2011) and a greater emphasis on anti-racism (Colic-Peisker and Farquharson 2011). Interculturalism has not figured prominently in these debates about the future of Australian multiculturalism. In recent years, however, intercultural approaches have begun to garner more attention among policymakers, civil society actors and academics. In addition to interest prompted by the membership of Australian cities in the ICC program, in 2021 the South Australian government included the objective of advancing both multiculturalism and interculturalism in its Multicultural Charter and Act (South Australian Government 2021).

Adopting Interculturalism in Australia – The Cases of Ballarat and Melton

The adoption of interculturalism in Australia took a different path from those followed in Europe and Canada. In the context of a deeply embedded and largely unquestioned multicultural policy framework, the initial moves towards intercultural diversity policy were the outcome of the advocacy of a small number of diversity practitioners working in isolation from each other and with no organisational or institutional backing.

The structural space for this development exists in the open-ended regulations around how municipalities are required to manage cultural diversity. Although ‘multiculturalism’ is the default policy choice, the term is not prescriptively defined.³ However, the use of this policy space to advocate for intercultural principles was the outcome of highly contingent circumstances. In the cases of Ballarat and Melton, this development occurred when diversity practitioners who had indirectly heard of the ICC model were co-incidentally contracted to write the inaugural diversity policy strategies in the cities. These individuals advocated for intercultural principles and received backing for them from elected councillors and other policymakers within their Councils.

The intercultural strategies which followed were fitted into Australia’s multicultural policy ecology in different and precarious ways. In Ballarat, intercultural principles were initially incorporated ‘under the radar’ (Ballarat 2009) while in Melton they guided Australia’s first explicitly intercultural diversity strategy (Melton 2010). These strategies were implemented with no formal contact with the ICC for almost a decade until, in 2016, the practitioner who wrote the Melton strategy forged connections with the ICC and in the role of ICC ‘expert’ facilitated Ballarat’s and Melton’s membership in 2017 and 2018 respectively. Since then, both cities have remained committed to intercultural principles which have structured two further diversity strategies (Ballarat 2018, 2022, Melton 2017) and other cities have joined the ICC network.

In what follows, I present data from two ongoing studies of intercultural cities in Australia to shed light on the policy motivations which drove the adoption of intercultural approaches, and what changes from conventional Australian multiculturalism policy and practices it engendered. The data also offers a glimpse into the reception of this policy among diversity sector stakeholders.

The primary source of data is interviews with the policymakers responsible for writing and implementing the cities’ intercultural strategies conducted as part of the Intercultural Cities in Australia study. Each policymaker had extensive experience working in the multicultural sector. The first interview was conducted in 2018 with the Council Officer who wrote and oversaw the implementation of Ballarat’s intercultural strategy documents. These are: Our Cultural Diversity Strategy 2009–2014 (Ballarat 2009) and the Ballarat Intercultural City Strategic Plan 2018–2021 (Ballarat 2018). The second interview was conducted in September 2020 with the diversity consultant who wrote Melton’s first intercultural strategy, Intercultural strategy 2010-2014: Key directions and action plan (Melton 2010). The third was conducted in June 2019 with the Council Officer who played a key role in the development and implementation of the second ICC strategy in Melton. The fourth was conducted in October 2020 with the Council Officer who authored Melton’s second intercultural plan (Melton 2017) and at the time of the interview was overseeing its implementation.

Additional data was drawn from two focus groups conducted in Ballarat in 2022 as part of the International Intercultural Cities Comparative Study. Data from the focus group of six policymakers from across the Ballarat Council (FG1) is used to supplement the findings on policy motivations and shifts. Data from a second focus group of eleven diversity sector stakeholders in Ballarat (FG2) is used to provide an insight into the reception the city’s intercultural strategy. The stakeholders were diversity sector representatives who had worked closely with the Council and were nominated by Council to participate in the study. Overall, they were highly supportive of the intercultural strategy adopted by Council, but also voiced opinions about weaknesses in its execution. All interviews and focus groups were between 60-90 minutes long, recorded and transcribed.

Given that research on intercultural cities in Australia is at an early stage, this study focuses on identifying the commonalities of the two cities, rather than drawing a comparison. The data was analysed in relation to two main areas: the motivations driving the adoption of the intercultural approach and the changes this approach represented vis-à-vis conventional multicultural approaches. In addition, an indication of how the intercultural approach was received among key diversity sector stakeholders was sought.

The Cities

Ballarat and Melton represent very different local government settings. Among the mostly periurban cities which have joined the program in Australia, the regional City of Ballarat is an outlier. Located approximately 105 kilometres North-West of Melbourne, it is the third most populous urban area in Victoria. Established during the gold rush period (1850s–60s), it was for a time a major cosmopolitan city with a large Chinese community. After the gold rushes, both the city’s population and cultural diversity declined significantly, but both have steadily increased over the past two decades. The proportion of the city’s population born in another country has risen from 7.2 per cent in 2001 to 11.3 per cent in 2021. The top five countries of birth are the UK, India, New Zealand, China, Philippines. Of the current population of 115,847, 7.0 per cent speak a language other than English at home, the most common languages being Mandarin, Punjabi, Malayalam, Filipino/Tagalog, Hindi and Urdu (Ballarat 2023). Despite its recent growth in cultural diversity, Ballarat remains one of Australia’s least diverse cities (Ballarat 2023) and tensions around cultural diversity and racism are relatively muted.

Melton represents the most common demographic makeup of Australian cities to join the ICC. A relatively new, rapidly growing and culturally diverse municipality located on the outskirts of Melbourne, its population of 192,865 people includes 35.7 per cent overseas born residents of whom 39 per cent speak a non-English language (most commonly Punjabi, Filipino/Tagalog, Vietnamese and Arabic) (Melton 2023). The municipality is also home to significant communities of First Nation peoples, humanitarian visa holders and several groups who have been subject to sustained discrimination and vilification across the country, including African-Australians and Muslim-Australians (Melton 2017). It has in recent years faced a range of cultural diversity and racism issues, including high profile incidents of racism (Herald Sun 2011). The city’s rapid greenfield development has also seen the new relationship between migrant and socio-economic status wrought by Australia’s shift to skilled migration since the 1990s etched into its built environment. Recent skilled migrants have been settling in large and expensive houses on new estates with high-quality amenities.

Policy Motivations

Notwithstanding the very different demographic settings of the two cities, the policymakers in Ballarat and Melton reported similar motivations driving their adoption of the ICC model. Thematic analysis of the interviews and focus groups revealed six factors which underpinned the uptake of the ICC model.

First, the policymakers identified a new set of diversity challenges stemming from the changing relationship between migrant and SES status prompted by Australia’s shift to skilled migration in the 1990s. This was a major concern in Melton where the policymakers reported the issue had ‘real potential to tear apart communities’ (Interview 4). One of the most troubling expressions of this situation was a new form of geographical segmentation among the city’s residents which they considered the ‘biggest threat to social cohesion’ in the municipality (Interview 4). Recently arrived skilled migrants predominantly resided in new high-end housing estates with high amenities while many less economically secure post war migrants and Australian born residents lived in older and more run-down parts of the city (Interview 4). Exacerbating this was a new form of ‘ethnic concentration’, with 70 per cent of residents in one high-end estate sharing a single cultural background and country of origin. In the less diverse city of Ballarat, concern was expressed about potential tensions from this new dynamic as numbers of skilled migrants continued to rise (Interview 1).

Second, they thought multiculturalism tended to over-emphasise difference in ways which encouraged separateness and led to limited and fragile modes of living together in a diverse society. One commented ‘if you are looking at multiculturalism, you're looking at difference. Like I'm Filipino, … you're Italian, you go to your own village, I'll go to my own village’ (Interview 1). Others considered multiculturalism led to ‘a society where people tolerate each other’ (Interview 3) and relationships with minorities were not encouraged to go beyond ‘acceptance’ or ‘celebration’ (Interview 3).

Third, the policymakers considered that the ICC model addressed these weaknesses of multiculturalism. In relation to the overemphasis on difference and separateness, one Ballarat policymaker saw interculturalism as encouraging real ‘exchange’: ‘The differences are highlighted, but how can you work together so that we can solve and make those differences a positive experience?’ (FG1). Another said how important it was ‘to see people who are different, but working together and joined together, learning from each other so, it becomes more harmonious’ (Interview 1).

Fourth, in relation to deepening social bonds across cultural differences, the policymakers contrasted the ‘box ticking’ and superficial modes of interaction they associated with conventional multicultural practice with the more genuine form of exchange and dialogue fostered by greater interaction. One spoke of this in terms of the message interculturalism conveyed to newcomers:

yes, we recognize your differences, but we're actually now going to have dialogue with you and learn from each other and how can we be a better city now that we have you within, with us as part of our makeup? (FG1)

Fifth, the policymakers also considered that interculturalism empowered minority communities, by encouraging more participation in social and civil life. One policymaker commented that ‘when they participate in decision making, they are encouraged to be active citizens’ and another that interculturalism is ‘empowering communities to start connecting with each other’ (FG1).

Finally, the policymakers considered that interculturalism helped to achieve some of the fundamental objectives of multiculturalism that had not been realised. They considered interculturalism an ‘evolution’ of multiculturalism (FG1) which went to ‘the next level, where people start working together’ (Interview 3).

Policy Shifts

The interviews with policymakers also revealed similarities in Ballarat and Melton on the question of how the intercultural policies and practices they had adopted differed from conventional Australian multiculturalism. Despite some differences in emphasis and scale, the policymakers in both cities sought to reorient conventional multicultural approaches along similar lines. These fall into three broad areas: policy discourse, policy process and policy practice.

In the area of policy discourse, the main innovation was the projection of a ‘whole of society’ conception of diversity that incorporated the majority as one of the community’s diverse cultural groups. In Ballarat, all discussions of diversity explicitly now referred to both ‘Anglo-Saxon … [and] new and emerging communities’ (Interview 1). A Melton policymaker attributed great significance to its practice of using terminology that includes the majority when talking about diversity in all council communications (Interview 3). Melton had a ‘huge focus on whole of community … and that’s another major aspect of this plan that distinguishes us from generic multicultural strategic planning’ (Interview 3). The policymakers saw this as important because it avoided the implication that diversity and diversity policy only concern minorities and the perception that the majority are the tradition-less and culture-neutral ‘norm’. These views were also inserted in their policy documents (Ballarat 2009, 2018, 2022, Melton 2010, 2017).

In the area of policy process, the most significant shift was the adoption of a ‘whole of organisation’ approach to policy making. As a Melton policymaker described it:

The intercultural approach does not sit only in our area. It goes broader. It involves a whole council approach. And we would like to see the work of diversity to be across council … we see this as a crosscutting theme into any kind of area. For example, when we are talking about planning, we want to see when they design buildings, public buildings, how do the planners take into account the needs of our community? (Interview 3)

The policymakers saw this distribution of responsibility beyond the department nominally responsible for diversity policy as the largest break with Australian multicultural convention. In Melton it brought about a major organisational change which located responsibility for intercultural strategy at the apex of its administrative structure (Interview 3). At the same time, the policymakers considered it their most consequential innovation. They saw it as amplifying and extending the reach of intercultural initiatives because many intercultural actions ‘are not things that we do, they’re things that other parts of council need to do’ (Interview 3). They reported that it transformed the culture within the council – engendering more collaboration across departments and making diversity initiatives more durable. Cross-departmental information sessions and cultural competency initiatives had garnered wide and enthusiastic engagement, fostering ‘buy-in’ to diversity issues across the city’s policy areas (Interviews 1 and 3).

In the area of policy practice, the main shifts from multicultural convention were measures to maximise interaction between cultural groups, including the majority, in public space planning and the delivery of services and programs. Innovation in these spheres was the most challenging and the most varied. Some involved a rethinking of the multicultural repertoire while others involved new ones.

Both cities adopted planning strategies to maximise interaction between cultural groups. These strategies built on cross-unit collaborations fostered by the whole of organisation approach. The flagship initiative in Ballarat was a collaboration across the city’s Parks and Gardens, Community Development, Health and Aging, Sports and Recreation and Community Development units to create an ‘intercultural garden’. In Melton, a collaboration between the diversity and planning departments worked to foster organic intermixing by housing multiple service delivery organisations together in new municipal developments. One example was a new building called the Melton Central:

We would like to turn that into a community hub. So when they were designing that, [the engineers] came and they approached us, our team, and asked, ‘[this is] what we are designing – what is your input?' So we wanted to make sure that the building has … a prayer room, a quiet room for mothers, and a space where people could feel comfortable. So this could only happen when we work very closely with other departments and put diversity into their perspective. And so they do not actually just do it … the conventional way. (Interview 3)

In relation to standalone initiatives, a novel example in Melton was a community program that brought together minority community groups and established mainstream community organisations to work on shared community projects (Interview 1; Melton 2017). Another example of rethinking conventional initiatives was Ballarat’s revamp of its annual Harmony Festival – a core element of the multicultural repertoire of local governments – by resourcing cultural groups to better reach and host the wider community and reworking a program to address under-employment among skilled migrants by bringing people of diverse backgrounds together.

Attempts to maximise interaction between groups in service delivery proved to be challenging in both cities. This was mainly because linguistic access needs made linguistically specific services essential to provide equitable access to all groups in the community. However, Melton experimented with ways to achieve a balance between responding to linguistic needs and maximining contact across cultural groups. One example was a hybrid model which integrated ethno-specific programs typical of multicultural practice with mainstreaming components in a community education program on sustainable domestic practices. This combined plenary sessions to bring all participants together with linguistically specific sessions to convey information (Interview 1).

Policy Reception

Although not representative of the broader community, the data from the Ballarat stakeholders focus group offers some insight into the reception of the ICC model among representatives of diversity groups. Data from this focus group showed strong support for interculturalism, for similar reasons to those given by the policymakers. Like the policymakers, the stakeholders considered that multiculturalism tended towards separation of cultural groups. One said, ‘I think with multiculturalism, we [are] all kept in our little boxes separate’ and another that ‘you can coexist, but isn’t it better to have the interaction to learn from each other? Because otherwise you are still separate’. Many noted that, with multiculturalism, ‘you don’t have to interact with each other’ (FG2). They also considered interculturalism was more inclusive: ‘you are making it inclusive, allowing others to come in to participate’ and ‘to develop a more inclusive, cohesive society’. There was also a strong sense that it cultivated more substantial relationships because by ‘entwining with each other’ and ‘crossing over’ allowed people to ‘learn from each other’ (FG2).

Also like the policymakers, the stakeholders viewed interculturalism as a ‘natural progression’ from multiculturalism. One stakeholder summed this up, saying interculturalism was a ‘step forward’ that is ‘taking the principles even further than multiculturalism and elevating multiculturalism’ (FG2).

Two further findings from the focus group were notable. The first was that Ballarat’s intercultural strategy did not do enough to combat racism. They considered racism a significant issue and saw the need for a greater response to it, including through ‘intercultural’ approaches such as fostering interpersonal interaction and dialogue in civil society settings.

The second was the importance they attributed to strategies for incorporating the Anglo majority into the spheres of diversity and diversity policy. They strongly welcomed measures to maximise interaction between minorities and the majority cultural group. They also put great weight on the strategies to include the majority into discourse around the community’s diversity. They considered this a major step forward in intercepting the unequal politics of exclusion and inclusion and considered it the most significant outcome of the ICC model.

Discussion

The adoption of the ICC model was an unlikely development in Australian cities on several counts. Australia has a multicultural diversity policy ecology deeply embedded across its three levels of government. Its relative success has fostered a view within the diversity sector that there is little to learn from a diversity policy approach with origins in Europe, a region considered to have largely failed in diversity policy. As well, the Council of Europe has no institutional presence from which to promote its model. Despite this inhospitable ground, the ICC network has gained a foothold in Australia. With little institutional support, a small number of cities have not only adopted the model but maintained it for nearly a decade.

There are several reasons to better understand this development and to consider its relevance for Australian diversity policy. In the 40 years since the country’s adoption of multiculturalism to guide migrant settlement and the transition from its ‘White Australia’ policy, the country’s patterns of immigration and diversity have shifted dramatically, while geopolitical developments have thrown up new diversity challenges. Although interculturalism has not featured prominently in the calls for rethinking multiculturalism, there is growing interest in the approach – significantly, by the South Australian state government.

As a way into further understanding this development, the following sections draw together the key findings from the study and situate these in the literature and theoretical debates about multiculturalism and interculturalism. Some suggestions are then proffered for how the ICC model could enhance Australian diversity policy and, finally, how these findings might inform theoretical debates.

The Australian Intercultural Turn

The characterisation of the Australian intercultural turn given by the policymakers in this study does not align neatly with the arguments offered by either side in the first phase of theoretical debates, where interculturalism was construed as either a radical break with multiculturalism, and superior form of diversity policy, or as simply an ‘additive’ to multiculturalism which would leave it mostly unchanged.

Overall, the policymakers in this study envisioned the relationship between the two approaches in terms that bypassed these positionings. For instance, they spoke of interculturalism as ‘a progression from’ and ‘an elevation of’ multiculturalism and, at the same time, as adding to rather than replacing multiculturalism. For them, interculturalism was a natural evolution of multiculturalism because it made a crucial advance beyond multiculturalism, but this built on the achievements of multiculturalism rather than requiring its dismantling.

On more specific issues, the policymakers strongly concurred with the interculturalists’ view of contemporary diversity challenges and the need for new policy responses, while the implementation of the model resulted in a complex interaction with existing multicultural approaches rather than a wholesale replacement of them. Implementation of the model also revealed an unanticipated point of difference between the two diversity perspectives.

Why Interculturalism was Adopted

The policymakers’ view of contemporary diversity challenges was very close to the arguments put forward in early phase of debates to support interculturalism. They considered that: novel circumstances associated with increasing mobility, superdiversity and globalisation were creating new challenges around diversity; that multiculturalism, tending to emphasise difference and separateness, was not well suited to dealing with these challenges; and that emphasis on interaction stressed by interculturalism was the missing element that was crucial to meeting those challenges.

Mapped onto the specificities of the Australian context, the new challenges they identified were primarily associated with the shift in migrant recruitment settings from the 1990s on, which saw a move away from low skilled, primarily European migrants of the post-war era towards skilled migrants who have increasingly come from Asian countries. Newer migrants have different needs, often more related to symbolic and social integration, and their different SES status has been contributing to new tensions and divisions within the community.

On the question of the suitedness of multiculturalism to meet these challenges, they considered that Australian multicultural policy and practice at the local government level typically emphasises the principle of the ‘recognition of difference’ and tends towards ‘separateness’ in that it primarily supports cultural minorities through culture-specific programs which work against interaction across cultural lines. They thought the ICC model therefore represents a significant shift in diversity policy vis-à-vis multiculturalism.

The elements of the ICC model which attracted the policymakers were those which seek to better ‘integrate’ the majority into the sphere of diversity. The ICC model promotes this symbolically, through the notion that ‘diversity is the norm’. They considered this a significant departure from multiculturalism which they considered treats the majority as the norm from which minorities are recognised for their difference. They also thought the ICC model promotes integration of the majority into the sphere of diversity practically through programs and policies which maximise interaction across all cultural groups, including the majority. This departs from ‘ethno-specific’ multicultural program and service delivery that is typical at their local governments.

Complexities in Implementation

However, despite the overlap of the policymakers’ views with pro-intercultural arguments, the implementation of the ICC model in the Australian context did not entail a complete break with existing multicultural approaches. Two examples reveal the more nuanced interaction of intercultural and multicultural principles which ensued. The first of these was that the emergence of new patterns of and tension around diversity did not mean that ‘old’ issues disappeared. In line with Modood (2014), the policymakers were cognizant that marginalised communities such as Indigenous Australians, refugees and frequently targeted groups such as African and Muslim Australians continue to face issues for which group identification remains a valuable vehicle for social justice. This is the case alongside the emerging issues facing growing cohorts of skilled migrants of needing to be included in the community and a sense of equitable ‘belonging’.

A second was the view that ethno-specific programs typical of multicultural approaches are necessary alongside efforts to ‘mainstream’ services and programs. Despite the commitment to maximising interaction, ‘multicultural’ ethno-specific strategies remain an important part of the diversity policy armoury. The policymakers responded to these complexities by seeking to maximise interaction wherever possible alongside, or in ‘hybrid’, programs. This is in line with recent work suggesting that optimal service delivery should involve a combination of ethno-specific, ‘multicultural’⁴ and mainstream options (Mansouri et al 2022).

‘Whole of Organisation’ Approach

The implementation of the ICC model also highlighted a view of the key differences between interculturalism and multiculturalism that differed from the focus of theoretical debates. Where those debates had focused on whether and to what extent multiculturalism had already promoted the principle of interaction across cultural groups, the policymakers came to see the ICC model’s most consequential departure from multiculturalism as the methodological shift entailed in the ‘whole of organisation’ approach. They saw the model’s emphasis on interaction as an indispensable shift from multicultural approaches, but they saw the ‘whole of organisation’ strategy as a crucial foundation which underpinned and supported the full spectrum of intercultural agendas. They believed that extending responsibility for diversity issues into all areas of policymaking elevates the profile of diversity issues, increases the capacity for diversity initiatives and makes diversity policy and programs more durable. They also saw this ‘transversal’ approach as playing an activating role internally and externally because it requires – and fosters – an active commitment among policymakers across the whole council and puts high priority on bringing citizens into policymaking processes.

Enriching Australian Diversity Policy

A broader uptake of intercultural approaches in the Australian context will depend on further research to evaluate its outcomes vis-à-vis multiculturalism. However, this study has highlighted several elements of the ICC model which address weaknesses that have been identified within Australian multiculturalism and might therefore contribute to discussions around strengthening it.

Symbolic Integration

The first concerns symbolic integration. In recent years, Australian researchers have underscored the importance of an inclusive conception of national identity for fostering social cohesion (Megalogenis 2017, Levey 2018). A key issue that has been identified is how to deal with the historical and cultural hegemony of the Anglo majority. Levey argues that sidestepping it discursively, as occurs in the abstract notion of equality which underpins the metaphor of ‘the mosaic’ on which current conceptions of Australian national identity rest, simply masks the force of the dominant culture ‘still operating beneath the official rhetoric’ (Levey 2008: 262). What is required, he argues, is a historically grounded conception which acknowledges the legacy of the Anglo majority but narrates ‘the coming together of Indigenous Australians, Anglo-Australians and immigrant Australians’ (Levey 2018). While the ICC model mostly works with a cosmopolitan view of diversity which can be criticised for being as abstract as that of the ‘mosaic’, the vision of diversity adopted by Ballarat and Melton has had a different emphasis. Their approach, which decentres the majority by particularising it, aligns with the approach suggested by Levey. Rather than covering over the Anglo majority and allowing it to exert its cultural power through taken-for-granted norms, it is explicitly named as one of many cultural groups, presenting its particular culture as one among many.

Giving More Authority to Diversity Units Within Local Government

The second issue concerns the profile and reach of diversity policy within local governments. Research has pointed to the siloing of diversity policy in dedicated – and often marginalised – departments as a weakness of Australian multiculturalism at the local government level (Dunn et al. 2001). The ICC’s whole of organisation or ‘transversal’ methodology, which puts diversity issues ‘on the table’ across the whole city administration, offers a way of rectifying this marginalisation. It holds out the potential of elevating ‘buy-in’ among across city administrations in relation to diversity issues and initiatives.

Interaction with the Anglo Majority

The third issue concerns interaction between minority cultural groups and the majority. Researchers have pointed out that the failure to foster genuine interaction between minorities and the Anglo majority has been a major limitation in Australian multicultural practice. Despite official multicultural statements seeking to incorporate the Anglo majority into the idea of ‘Multicultural Australia’, the perception that multicultural policies only concern migrants or minorities has persisted (Moran 2017) and genuine interaction between those groups and Anglo-Australians has been rare (Dandy et al. 2013). The ICC model’s prioritisation of such interaction suggests strategies that might assist in bridging this gap between multicultural aspirations and realities.

Informing Debates About Interculturalism and Multiculturalism

The adoption of the ICC model within Australia’s deeply embedded and largely uncontested multicultural policy context offers a new vantage point for viewing ongoing debates about the relationship between the two perspectives. This study highlights two observations relevant to ongoing discussions.

The first concerns the question prominent in the initial phase of the debate, of whether and how the two perspectives differ. Levey has suggested that one reason for lack of agreement around this question is the absence of a stable reference point for comparison. Taking into account the multiplicity of policy formats, philosophical elaborations and geographical and historical variations, he argues that the terms are ‘so discursively fluid and the respective self-identifying camps so theoretically multifarious that it is impossible to determine any clear or stable demarcation between them’ (Levey 2012: 217). Bringing the Australian case more fully into these debates reinforces the perception that agreement on this question is unlikely to be achieved. In the Australian policy context, the perspectives have connotations and institutional implications that differ from those in other regions – especially those of Europe and Canada, which have been the main reference points for theoretical debates. Contributing to the absence of a stable reference point are the disparities between programmatic statements of official multicultural policy and everyday understandings and practices. These exist in relation to interaction between the majority and minorities (Dandy et al. 2013), the place of the Anglo majority within understandings of ‘Multicultural Australia’ (Moran 2017) and holistic approaches to diversity policy (Dunn et al. 2001).

Nonetheless, this study has thrown up the possibility of a new approach to the question of what distinguishes the two perspectives. Where debates to date have focussed centrally on whether interculturalism’s emphasis on interaction and dialogue was already present in at least some variants of multiculturalism, this study raises the possibility that the most significant difference between the two perspectives may be interculturalism’s ‘developmental logic’ that seeks to reshape contexts of diversity. In the ICC model, this logic is present in attempts to activate the whole administration through the transversal organisation of policy efforts, and through a prioritisation of measures which engage citizens in decision making processes. Further research is required to establish to what extent multiculturalism also promotes such an agenda. However, the policymakers’ view that the transversal methodology was the most significant and consequential departure from multiculturalism, along with the stakeholders’ positive views of increased engagement with the community, suggests that further comparative and theoretical exploration around this dynamic may provide a firmer basis for differentiation.

The second observation concerns the question, prominent in more recent debates, of whether and how multiculturalism and interculturalism could be combined. Mansouri and Modood (2020) have argued that the Australian case provides evidence for complementarity in the form of a macro/micro division of labour in which local level intercultural initiatives have been assisted by and, in turn, enriched the country’s national level multicultural policy framework. This study broadly supports this view, while suggesting that a neat national/local division of labour may not do full justice to the full potentialities of the perspectives.

The study highlights areas at both local and national levels where a more nuanced blend of intercultural and multicultural strategies may better realise the contributions of each. At the local level, the findings point to the ongoing utility of multicultural strategies such as ethno-specific programs alongside intercultural strategies to maximise interaction. They also illustrate the potential utility of intercultural anti-discrimination and anti-racism initiatives based on interpersonal interaction and dialogue to be deployed at the local level to enhance macro-level legislative measures to combat racism and discrimination.

At the national level, the study raises the possibility that intercultural approaches could contribute to more inclusive narratives of national identity and belonging. The Ballarat and Melton strategy of ‘particularising’ the majority in visions of their communities’ diversity in order to decentre it has affinities with the intercultural vision of national identity proposed by Charles Taylor. Writing in the Canadian context, Taylor (2012) distinguishes between the Canadian multicultural narrative of national identity which tells a story of abstract equality and the intercultural narrative which tells a historically grounded story of a society once defined by an established cultural community but now enriched and encompassing newcomers. The intercultural conception, he argues, is better placed to foster acceptance of new levels and patterns of diversity and an inclusive ethos. It does this by recognising the historically dominant group, as well as narrating the changes to the nation that migration brings, thus helping the dominant group make sense of the community’s changing composition.

Conclusion

Based on the views of policymakers and stakeholders in the two Australian cities, this study did not seek to assess the outcomes of the adoption of the ICC model. For this reason, it is not possible to draw any conclusions about the model’s success in fostering social cohesion any better than multicultural programs and policies.

However, the ‘insider’ account of the intercultural turn it presents is a crucial step in developing the nascent research on intercultural cities in Australia. It has provided a picture from the vantage point of local government of a changing diversity policy context and of departures from conventional Australian multiculturalism following the adoption of the ICC model. Key among them were the inclusion of the majority in discourse around of diversity, the transversal approach to policy process and an emphasis on maximising interaction.

The study has also highlighted the relevance of the intercultural experiment in Australia to ongoing discussions about enriching and revitalising multiculturalism. Although interculturalism has not featured prominently in this discussion, it is notable that the departures from conventional approaches identified by the policymakers across the spheres of policy discourse, policy processes and policy practice specifically address limitations that have been identified in Australian multiculturalism. A fuller exploration of the relevance of the ICC model requires further research on the Australian intercultural turn, including how it has been received within the community – including among the Anglo majority – and investigation of factors which may be limiting its take up.

Acknowledgement

I extend my sincere appreciation to Mark Scillio for his detailed and insightful comments on earlier drafts. Additionally, I am grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and constructive feedback which significantly enhanced the quality of this article.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Glenda Ballantyne

Glenda Ballantyne is a migration and cultural diversity scholar and Senior Lecturer in Sociology, in the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences at Swinburne University. Her current research explores interculturalism in Australia and globally, contemporary perspectives on cultural diversity among second generation Australians and experiences of racism among Asian Australians during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Notes

1 Ballantyne G. and Eversole R., Intercultural Cities in Australia (2018–2024). This study is examining the adoption of intercultural approaches to diversity policy in Australian cities.

2 Ballantyne, G., Zapata-Barrero, R., White, B., Eversole, R., Radford, D. and Hiruy, K., The International Intercultural Cities Comparative Study (2021–2023). This three-country (Australia, Spain and Canada) study is part of the From the EU to the Antipodes: Embedding Intercultural Cities in Australasia project and is supported by the Erasmus+ programme of the European Union.

3 For example, the Victorian state legislation required cities to ensure that ‘all of their residents are celebrated, valued and feel that they belong’, provide ‘services that are inclusive, accessible and equitable’ and lead ‘programs and policies that promote social justice and human rights, social inclusion and equal opportunity, prevention of violence, and freedom from discrimination’ (Victorian Government 2023).

4 Ie different minority cultural groups.