The two types of intercultural ideology that promote a us-them dynamic are monism and relativism, I think that in the case of our research we resorted to the relativism form of this dynamic. We were looking for cultures that we saw were different from ours, not in an aggressive or confrontation way, but we saw them as something “exotic” as van Asperen uses this term as an aspect of relativism. I think personally I have more of an “I want to learn from these other cultures” but as I did this I created an us-them mentality that I was not even aware of. I think when looking for evidence of globalization in the Arlington community we considered this evidence as a separation from our own culture. Especially in discussing international business and restaurants.
Van Asperen claims that the Communicative Moral Universalism creates the best environment for contact with other cultures. The elements that van Asperen lists about communicative moral universalism are there is “diverse views of the world”, and “discussions on diversity are crucial”, and that “nobody has the right to exclude another”, as well as a “continuous search for a balance between dependence and autonomy”. An important aspect of the communicative moral universalism is that everyone is unique and has some degree of free choice so each of us is responsible for our actions and in return we are also responsible for the community. I think van Asperen emphasizes the importance of discussion on diversity which is a base for the Global Village. We are in intercultural teams discusses views of globalization and the world. In the global village classroom, we are constantly discussing different ideas and views on a variation of topics, but we also take in the knowledge that we must take responsibility for our actions.