ABSTRACT
Multiculturalism and interculturalism are buzzwords for many affirmative action plans in countries that have large numbers of migrant population. Yet these words share many ambiguities, meanings and intentions. Multiculturalism has many definitions: Pavis terms it the ‘dominant cultural model in Europe … within which all differences are invited to converge, while preserving a certain autonomy…’ (Pavis 2006: 283). In some countries like Malaysia it may emerge as a public policy approach for managing cultural diversity in a multi-ethnic and multilingual society, a state apparatus to develop mutual respect and tolerance for the multiplicities of cultural differences within the borders of nation states. When a policy on multiculturalism is instituted by the state, it officially places importance on the unique characteristics of different cultures that are represented within the communities of a nationality or nation. It idealises the preservation of cultural mosaic where separate cultural identities and ethnic groups are placed together harmoniously in a tolerant society, unlike a melting pot, where all the immigrant cultures are mixed and amalgamated without state intervention. This notion of multiculturalism can lead to anxiety about the stability of national identity, in spite of its ability to induce cultural exchanges in performance, literature, art, dress and nouvellecuisine that benefit cultural groups. However, it remains debatable as to whether multiculturalism is about culture or the practice of cultures.
