FAQ
Frequently Asked Questions About Pluralism
A core capacity for any pluralism leader is taking seriously the questions or concerns people may express about this vision for cooperating across differences.
Frequently Asked Questions About Pluralism
A core capacity for any pluralism leader is taking seriously the questions or concerns people may express about this vision for cooperating across differences. People need to meaningfully wrestle with how pluralism aligns with their own values and goals. In other words, questions, concerns, or even resistance are a normal and healthy part of building pluralism. To support leaders as they facilitate such a “wrestling” process, the following are some of the most frequent questions people have about pluralism and Interfaith America’s brief responses.
An Important Note on How to Approach Questions, Concerns, or Pushback
These topics are nuanced and worth shared exploration and thoughtful conversation. In holding space for these questions, a leader’s main goal is to model curiosity, normalize differences, and ensure others feel heard and considered. In that effort, try to:
- Normalize the existence of questions, concerns, or general wrestling.
- Repeat back what people share, checking to see what you may have misunderstood.
- Ask sincere, open-ended questions to better understand underlying values and needs.
- Empathize aloud with anything that seems challenging or complicated.
- Thank people for participating and making space for different ideas and experiences.
While there are innumerable questions people might have and various ways to respond, the most important thing you can do is to stay curious! Relieve yourself of the pressure to agree, disagree, or immediately resolve any questions or concerns that others share.
Big Picture
What is the main goal of pluralism?
Interfaith America sees the goal of pluralism as positively engaging diversity so that we build communities where people respect each other’s right to their views and identities, form mutually inspiring relationships, and cooperate on shared goals.
Pluralism isn’t primarily about reducing conflict; it’s about creating conditions where people from lots of different backgrounds can build a shared life together. Pluralism produces and sustains civic goods like increased understanding, decreased prejudice, reduced isolation, increased cohesion, and the ability to solve problems together across differences.
“Respect-Relate-Cooperate” as an approach for (and the goal of) pluralism seems too simplistic. Does this approach have enough substance, especially given the complexity of real-life situations and communities?
Interfaith America’s definition of pluralism is intentionally simple, but not simplistic. It serves as a clear vision or “north star” that can guide more-complex strategies that a leader uses to build cultures where people regularly cooperate across difference.
Respect-Relate-Cooperate is both a vision and a roadmap for building pluralism, with each part pointing to real, observable behaviors. Living into all three, especially across deep differences, is challenging and requires daily choices and effort. Interfaith America offers a host of resources and opportunities that support leaders in bringing Respect-Relate-Cooperate to life.
What does it mean to “respect”? What if I fundamentally don’t respect someone else’s views, identity, or actions?
In our view of pluralism, “respect” means demonstrating through our behaviors that others have a right to their own identity and views. It does not mean that we agree with or support the views themselves.
It is true that “respect” can mean a lot of different things and look very different in practice, depending on one’s traditions or context. Thus, when we say “respect,” we are talking about how we behave toward others, specifically recognizing that everyone has the right to form and express their own identity and perspective. It’s normal and okay to struggle with others’ beliefs, and pluralism does not require us to agree with or even affirm someone else’s views. Instead, “respect” asks us to act in ways that honor everyone’s right to their own convictions. Concretely, this can look like letting others speak for themselves, listening without interrupting, and asking curious questions that invite deeper understanding (not agreement).
What “counts” as a genuine or authentic relationship?
In Interfaith America’s definition of pluralism, “relate” refers to mutually inspiring relationships across difference. These are relationships wherein we learn about and are inspired by what matters most to others, including their deeply held values, traditions, and motivations.
These relationships don’t require agreement or sameness—only a willingness to engage honestly and constructively. Mutually inspiring relationships offer the chance to learn about the beautiful, inspiring, or life-giving parts of each other’s perspectives and traditions.
What “counts” as cooperation?
In Interfaith America’s definition of pluralism, the “cooperate” in Respect-Relate-Cooperate means doing something concrete together, in service of a shared goal, while learning about each other’s deeply held values.
In Interfaith America’s view, cooperation might be the most important part of Respect-Relate-Cooperate. In this vision, cooperate means two very specific things:
- Concrete collaboration around a shared goal.
- Intentional opportunities for people to learn about each other’s deeply held values and motivations as part of the collaboration.
For example, imagine colleagues collaborating on designing a new policy, or community members organizing an event together. (This is part one: concrete collaboration around a shared goal.) Within that work, imagine that the group leaders create opportunities for group members to get to know each other at deeper levels by beginning or ending meetings with pair discussions featuring relationship-building questions like, “Who’s someone in your life who inspired you to care about this issue?” or “What’s a core value that sustains you when things get tough?” (This is part two: opportunities for people to learn about each other’s deeply held values and motivations.) The cooperate part of Respect-Relate-Cooperate is happening when you have both concrete collaboration and intentional, connective conversation about deeply held values.
What's the connection between pluralism and religious diversity?
Interfaith America believes that the best pluralism work embraces religious diversity by attending to the meaningful ways in which religious, non-religious, and ethical traditions often motivate how people build relationships and pursue the common good.
Interfaith America is in a unique position to support leaders to build cultures of pluralism because religious diversity is one of the most powerful, yet often under-addressed dimensions shaping institutions and communities. Interfaith leaders know how to navigate deeply held and even irreconcilable differences. The most effective pluralism leaders embrace the same interfaith leadership skills and strategies when pursuing the common good.
Relationship to Other Approaches
How does pluralism account for differences in power or privilege, whether systemically or interpersonally?
Pluralism seeks to build trust and cooperation, including among people who may understand power and privilege differently.
Interfaith America’s vision of pluralism does not assume people are on equal footing, and we do not ask people to ignore differences in power and privilege. As we work to advance pluralism, we can recognize that power shapes people’s experiences (often over generations), while focusing on how people relate to one another in the present, shared space. To engage in pluralism does not require a single, shared perspective on power or privilege. Rather, our pluralism efforts seek to create conditions where people can build respect, relationships, and cooperation even when they interpret systems, history, and inequality in different ways.
An analysis of power and privilege can be used when it helps, but it is not a prerequisite for collaboration. Respect-Relate-Cooperate is both a vision that institutions can embrace, and a set of individual behaviors we can each choose (as individuals, not as representatives of a group). We can create opportunities for people to share the ways they relate to systems and history while still centering the ways we are relating to each other in the present moment.
How is pluralism related to DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) approaches or other social justice work?
Pluralism is not a replacement for, nor in opposition to DEI or other social justice work; it is a relational framework that leaders can connect to their own commitments.
Pluralism and DEI (or social justice) approaches are not the same thing, nor are they mutually exclusive. Pluralism is a constructive approach that generates civic goods and does not require adherence to any specific beliefs about equity or justice. Many Interfaith America partners who are committed to DEI approaches see pluralism as complementary to their work. Interfaith America partners who disagree with DEI approaches also find pluralism supportive of their goals.
Equity or justice efforts often focus on identifying and addressing unequal conditions. Pluralism focuses on building trust and cooperation across deep differences—including differences about how to understand equity or justice itself.
Whatever a leader’s priority—whether equity, religious liberty, justice, freedom of expression, civil discourse, or beyond—pluralism can strengthen the work by helping diverse groups build the relationships needed to act together.
Limits and Challenges
What are the “red lines” in pluralism? Is it such a “big tent" approach that functionally there is nothing that is off-limits?
Pluralism makes room for a wide range of beliefs, but it is not neutral about observable behavior or the conditions needed for people to participate.
At the core, pluralism requires everyone to respect each person’s ability and right to form and express their own views and identities. Some actions—like refusing to let others speak or contribute; advocating that certain people deserve mistreatment or are beyond the bounds of moral consideration; or physical violence—fundamentally undermine the possibility of pluralism. Notice that these actions focus on the present moment and the observable. The focus is on behavior, not beliefs. We are not judging whether someone should be allowed to participate based on the past or based on what we think we know about someone. We are also not excluding anyone based on their beliefs (or our guesses about their beliefs), unless those beliefs are expressed as non-pluralistic behaviors, such as denigrating others.
Ultimately, there is not a pre-determined “red line” for every context. Leaders and participants need to make context-specific judgments about what is workable, safe, and aligned with their goals. In that sense, pluralism is less about a fixed list of prohibited ideas and more about maintaining the conditions where respect, relationships, and cooperation remain possible.
When considering whether a line has been crossed (or how to prevent lines from being crossed), leaders can ask themselves:
- Are people respecting and upholding others’ right to form their own views and identities?
- Are people expressing in their words and behaviors a commitment to building respect, relationships, and cooperation?
If these two things are true, the conditions for pluralism building exist, even when it’s really hard and even when people see things very differently.
Questions about “red lines” can come from very real, hurtful experiences and concerns about safety. Such questions can also come from a recognition that pluralism stretches us to engage with people or ideas we find distasteful or uncomfortable. Indeed, the hard but meaningful work of pluralism is to make space for people’s very real needs and experiences and to wrestle with complex and important questions like this one.
Can I still “do pluralism” if I believe that my perspective or faith is the actual, absolute truth? Does pluralism require people to water down or change their beliefs?
You can fully believe your opinion, tradition, worldview, or way of thinking is correct and that all others are wrong and still practice respect, relationships, and cooperation.
Pluralism is not about changing or weakening beliefs; it’s about how we engage with people who believe differently. We do this through our behaviors, making it clear that other views are welcome (even if we think they are incorrect). In many cases, engaging with different perspectives can actually clarify or strengthen our own convictions, not dilute them.
Importantly, instead of focusing on our deepest and most unchanging differences, pluralism asks us to find issues of shared concern and collaborate on those. Our diverse belief systems and traditions might lead us to fundamentally disagree on some things, but those same belief systems and traditions might also motivate us to work on other things together. For example, our religious or non-religious beliefs might lead us both to care for the earth or to provide support to those in need. In this way, pluralism does not seek to dilute anyone’s deeply held convictions or “resolve” our differences, but to create space for diverse groups to still live and work together.
Is pluralism asking people to expose themselves to harm by engaging with people whose views are disrespectful at best, dehumanizing at worst?
No—pluralism is an invitation and no one is expected to remain in a situation that is unsafe or demeaning.
At Interfaith America pluralism is something we invite people into, emphasizing individual agency and choice to make decisions about when and how to engage across differences. It is also absolutely true that some people might have more at stake or more to lose if an experience goes poorly. We encourage everyone to think through the potential risks as well as the rewards and to note that it’s natural for our brains to focus on the risks over the possible rewards. Some rewards of cooperating across differences might be revealing another truth, connecting with people whom you did not know shared your views, or living into a more authentic relationship with someone.
Studies have also consistently found that we overestimate the distance between “us” and “them”—a phenomenon called “The Perception Gap.” That’s not to say there are not meaningful differences between people, but just that, according to one study, we might overstate how extreme someone else’s views are by a factor of six.
Every one of us is on a journey, and it’s possible that people (including us) can grow and be open to new ideas and relationships (even if we weren’t before). For this reason, it’s helpful to check any assumptions we might be making about what someone else thinks. Are there places where we are jumping to a conclusion (“they do not view me or people like me as human”) based on one data point (“they listen to that commentator”)? As much as possible, try taking a deep breath and working, maybe over time, to find space for curiosity about “them.”
The people that I believe need to do pluralism aren’t interested. How do you “do pluralism” when people don’t even want to talk to each other, much less engage deep differences?
Pluralism doesn’t start with the hardest differences; it starts with shared values or goals and builds from there.
Ideally, the work begins with collaboration between those who are open, creating examples of trust and cooperation that others can observe over time. Willingness develops gradually as people begin to see that engagement is possible, respectful, and worthwhile; it cannot be forced. Trying to bring unwilling people together often backfires and deepens resistance. Not everyone is motivated to “build bridges” or “connect across difference” for the sake of it, and that’s okay.
Consider what already matters to people and where they already congregate. There might be shared spaces where people already pass one another, even if fleetingly like libraries, coffee shops, or recreation centers. Once you get people “to the table,” instead of aiming for deep conversations or diving into differences, first get people connecting in simple, but meaningful ways. Have them talk about things they love, people they admire, or values that bring them comfort or joy. Look for ways for different people to work on something together, like a volunteer project. Create simple, low-risk opportunities for participants to surface shared values and to build genuine relationships over time.
It’s also worth paying attention to the stories we tell ourselves and others about how people are divided or unwilling. In many of our communities, forms of pluralism are already happening—people have relationships and solve problems together without calling it “pluralism.” Strong leaders can make those existing examples of pluralism visible and “sticky,” helping to make things feel practical and within reach.
How can I set people up to “come to the table” in ways that uphold respect, relationships, and cooperation? If people show up but do not uphold respect, relationships, or cooperation, do they need to take accountability in some way?
Interfaith America’s pluralism work relies on a clear vision and expectations for how people engage—not just that they show up.
When we bring together people with diverse worldviews and traditions, it’s important to communicate a clear vision (Respect-Relate-Cooperate) for how the group will orient and work together (group agreements, guidelines, or norms). Even with that in place, challenges are normal—this work is ongoing, and no person or group gets it “right” all the time.
For Interfaith America, accountability in pluralism is less about calling people out and more about maintaining an environment where everyone can contribute. Sometimes that means inviting someone to try a different way of participating, or reminding the group what helps things work (like listening without interrupting, asking curious questions, or speaking for ourselves rather than on behalf of others). It’s also important to remember that these expectations are aspirational. People will miss the mark, and not all missteps are the same. Some moments just need a small reset, while others may require deeper conversation, remembering to ground in shared goals and values. Pluralism takes patience and when expectations are consistently and thoughtfully communicated, people have a greater chance of constructively engaging.
Is pluralism “neutral” or passive? When I see something wrong in the world, why should I try to understand or give space to other views instead of advocating proudly for what I believe in?
Pluralism is not about giving up advocacy or activism, it’s about how we engage each other while holding strong convictions.
In the same ways we may experience certainty and want our views to be taken seriously, we should extend that same consideration to others and their perspectives. Diversity is a fact of our world, and better understanding other experiences and views doesn’t mean agreeing with them. If we choose not to positively engage worldview diversity, destructive forces or people with less interest in positive engagement fill that space with more conflict and toxic polarization. Advocacy (pushing for a change) and pluralism (working together with different others and not working to change their views) can coexist, side by side, and are both vital parts of a healthy society. Remaining open to others’ perspectives might even help us get clearer about our own convictions and how we would like to build a better world.
Related Resources
Whether you’re a learner, an educator, or a practitioner, Interfaith America offers a suite of educational resources to help you realize your goals. Use our Learning & Action Bridge to find opportunities based on your role.
