Why study cultures? And how do we view them?

To address first the readings of Rohrlich and Hall, and the question of why we study this discipline I found them useful. Especially for an international relations student, understanding how cultures interact with each other is a major part of the discipline. I believe it is true that is helps address and understand global problems. Furthermore, this discipline should be encouraged so people understand the general terms used to discuss cultures, such as high and low context. I myself also felt as if the sense of culture was instilled in everyone, but now being at college and meeting new people I understand the term 'sheltered'. For me, I live in Staten Island, New York and so as a kid I would go into the city with my parents to museums and the park and just see the 'melting pot' that NYC is. I grew up with different cultures around me, my father for one who immersed us in the Native American culture out of his own interest. And then attending cultural events like pow-wows or an African wedding. So when I came to college I thought it was ironic to take a class on cultures considering you can learn so much from just observing, but like I said I realize now not everyone has this opportunity.
Also touching on the issues of ethics and more specifically universalism and relativism, I relate to the relative camp. Universalism sounds as if it is an idealistic concept, implying everyone is working together under the same norms and there is continual peace. This would be something to strive for considering the growth of globalization; however, I also follow a realist lens for international issues, which is why relativism speaks to me. It instead looks at particular groups and views certain groups as having particular rights. In the international world actors and states like to be distinguished regard each other in terms of power. With this alone comes individual characteristics, and this extends to culture. People are proud of their own cultures and have traditions they practice and to which they hold as standards for others.
This brings up the discussion from class and intervention. In class I argued that other cultures may view our practices of raising children as 'wrong' considering we allow them so much technological access, but that is because other cultures have correlations between ages and receiving knowledge. So really who is to say what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'. When do we intervene? And judging on the argument I was presenting it would seem as if I believe non-intervention is the way to go. However, I myself am conflicted because regarding humanitarian aspects I believe we should assist the global south and help them enter the developed world and global economy. Yet, again I am conflicted because how do we do that without imposing our own culture and standards upon these individuals. This is why universalism would have its perks, if there was an international consensus on how to intervene and during what instances, but with that we lose the subjectivity that relativism offers. So really this is me just exploring the options, I have yet to come to a definitive answer, but as of now I am leaning towards relativism.