The us-them dynamic is definitely present in our class, but I don’t believe in the negative way that the article is making it out to be. While the article seems to imply that this dynamic operates on forced stereotypes of people when they have discuss other cultures, I think that it can also be used to evaluate a more healthy dynamic between two groups of culturally diverse people. In the local community, I can see more about how this idea might have a different connotation, as sometimes it seems like we are trying to infringe and appropriate other cultures.
The author of the text says that her idea of Communicative Moral Relativism is “the name given… to this alternative based on encounters and human rights.” This is the ultimate example of “dependence and autonomy” when it comes to conversing with one another. In the view of the world, discussions about the world and diversity are crucial. In the view on culture and diversity, every person and every point of view is unique. Finally, in the view of interacting with man, all people are able to enact change, and everyone has the power together to enact change and change themselves. In reference to how it works with my group, we have to use all of these tactic to work together; this is not even between the Marymount students and the Hanze students exclusively. We have people in our class that are also from different cultures and places, but we are all able to have respectful conversation about where we are from. I think that respectful and informed civil discourse are makes conversation about culture and diversity even more effective.