“All the world is a stage, and all the men and women merely players. They have their exits and entrances; each man in his time plays many parts.” Like what William Shakespeare has illustrated, it is natural for individuals to be different from one another, let alone people of various cultures. Just as each individual has his own character, each culture has its own characteristics that distinguish it from other cultures. Although some may think that having such cultural differences will add on to the uniqueness of each culture, it is a cause for greater concern that these differences will result in cultural conflicts, which will act as barriers to the interaction between people of different cultures.

More often than not, people have a natural tendency to be ethnocentric, thinking that their culture is superior to other cultures. This is because people tend to make false assumptions based on their own limited experience. On the extremist end, ethnocentrism could result in serious racial conflicts. An instance is the system of apartheid, which existed in South Africa from 1948 to the early 1990s. The population was classified into Black, White, Indian and Coloured groups separated into different sectors and institutions. The segregation between the Non-whites and the Whites came to be so appalling, especially against the Blacks, that police brutality against the Blacks became widespread. As such, the separation caused a lack of interaction between Non-whites and the Whites due to the labeling of Non-whites as “second-class citizens”.

With ethnocentrism comes cultural imperialism, as shown in the history of Asian countries, the practice of promoting the culture of one nation in another. One example is the European Atlantic’s colonization of Asian nations. After monopolizing Asian countries’ resources by taking over their trading ports and routes, the Europeans continually imposed their culture on these nations. As a result, people living under the British came to know practically nothing about the world beyond the British perspective. Their commercial interests, education and concepts evolved all around the British. The same thing happened to those under the Dutch, French and Spanish too. The segregation of various colonies caused people-to-people contacts over colonial borders, which were guarded by Europeans, to come to a standstill.

Thankfully, cultural relativism allows a cornucopia of cultures to interact with one another peacefully by judging each culture based on its own standards. In the case, the victims are forced to accept the cultural rights of their aggressors. Take Hitler’s genocide for example. If the genocide was legally acceptable by the state, although it may seem unreasonable for the Jews to be massacred, the Jews have to live with that no matter how much they are upset by it. The Jews are compelled to accept the so-called rights of their aggressors and they cannot do anything about it. There will not be a breakdown in communication since interaction is still in place, just that it will simply be in the form of the domineering culture dictating to the rest.

Yet, cultural relativism has its fair share of problems too as it infringes on international law and standards, especially in terms of universal human rights. The right to culture is limited at the point at which it infringes on another human right. To deny human rights on the grounds of cultural distinction is discriminatory. Human rights are intended for everyone in every culture. If a state dismisses universal rights on the basis of cultural relativism, then rights would be denied to persons living under the state’s authority. Denial of human rights is wrong regardless of the violator’s culture. Even though Hitler might think he was right by massacring the Jews and favouring the Arabs, the Jews had found that this action only reflects the abuse of human rights a preposterous reason to eradicate the Jew population. This led to tension between the Jews and the Arabs, since the former was regarded lowly while the latter was held in such high regard. Inevitably, there was a breakdown in communication between the two cultures.

In the end, it all boils down to the fact that cultural differences will almost definitely lead to a hurdle in interaction. Perhaps in an attempt to rectify the situation, it should be mandatory for each state to stick to the universal human rights laws. It must be noted that the human rights laws also facilitates respect for and protection of cultural diversity and integrity through the establishment of cultural rights embedded in it like the International Bill of Rights and the right to cultural participation. If everyone can lead life under a common law, unnecessary conflicts will not occur. Otherwise, the fact that cultural differences create communication challenges will remain.