Interculturalism in theatre, especially the relationship between the West and the East, has become a matter of major critical and practical interest since the end of 20th century. There is no doubt that the ever-increasing cultural connections and exchanges through globalization process have intensified the interest in interculturalism in theatre. The aim of this paper does not consist in defining interculturalim but in exploring its discourses, mapping out the various aspects of interculturalism with respect to different cultural perspectives. For this, I view culture as "dynamic space" in the nexus of relations, a concept which can replace the dominant view of culture as an (organically) unified Society. I am concern with the positive views of interculturalim in the sense that these discourses establish an ideal state of mutual respect and reciprocal exchange among diverse cultures. But I cannot ignore the critical arguments suggesting the effects of cultural or political dominance among different nations and cultures. In the absence of equality and mutual exchange, I assert, the concept of an intercultural theatre would merely be the wrapped utopian fantasy of people who have power. Richard Schechner`s concept of "cultures of choice" and Indian scholar Rustom Bharucha`s notion of "collision of cultures" serve as pro and con in the various discourses on intercultural theatre projects. Schechner`s discourse, like Peter Brook`s notion of "culture of links," is based on the idea of an emerging global culture that can be formulated through the intercultural connections and exchanges. On the contrary, Bharucha, like Gautam Dasgupta, concerns the matter of appropriations of other cultures interculturalism can possibly produce. He asserts that interculturalism represents the danger of a ruling culture, unduly appropriating other (or minority`s) cultures and traditions without offering anything in return. Borrowing Arjun Appadurai`s poststructurally informed view on culture, I approach the concept of cultural universality and particularity of the global culture. I argue that Schechner pursues the world monoculture that erases cultural specificity and diversity. And I also criticize that Bharucha`s discourse is based on the cultural fundamentalism. As alternative discourses, I introduce Eugenio Barba`s "theatre anthropology" and Christopher Balme`s "syncretic theatre." Barba`s intercultural experiments for his theatre anthropology are focused on finding the principles of "pre-expressivity." The premise underlying Barba`s explorations of the pre-expressivity is that all human beings are essentially the same on the biological level, not the cultural level. His idea of barter of performance also embraces the possibility of reciprocity among different cultures. Balme`s investigation of syncretic theatre leads us to the crossroads of culture where the dynamics of interactions and exchanges among diverse cultures transpire. As his critical tools, he uses two major terms, "cultural text" and "dominant shift," in order to explain the interactions or movements between different cultural elements in syncretic theatre. Through the dynamics of the interactions in syncretic theatre, according to Balme, there is a substantial shift in the hierarchy that exists between indigenous cultural texts and Western cultural texts. As Balme demonstrates, intercultural theatre can also operate as a decolonizing tactics, which intends to reformulate existing dominations and hierarchies. Through this investigation of various discourses on interculturalism in theatre, I point out that the global culture is not a homogenized monoculture but a culture in which particularity and universality coexist. We live in "global village." In its positive meaning, we are peace-loving citizens and neighbors in a global republic. By the way, its negative side in the contemporary world is that the ever subtle but occasionally violent global domination breaks the illusion of glob