In other words, the anti-globalization people have it backwards. Corporations don't destroy local business and offerings; consumers do that by re-focusing their patronage to the latest place (Kuhl 57). Giving people the right to make informed choices for themselves means that very often they will choose convenience and consistent products instead of the ideological arguments of globalization critics.

The other reality that critics often don't want to face is that corporations don't create demand for their products out of thin air, so to speak. Starbucks opens new stores in markets that are perceived to be viable markets. Doing any differently would be ridiculous from a business perspective (Kuhl 56). Expanding a business into a new market, across national boundaries no less, represents a significant investment and is not taken lightly on the hope that marketers can drum up enough cultural homogenization before sales tank. Demand draws corporations into new markets via the mechanisms of globalization. If those ventures are successful and capture a portion of the local market share -- undoubtedly at the expense of the existing competitors in the market -- then any Americanization of the local culture is the result of consumer choice. The image of the corporation as a nefarious manipulator that maliciously attempts to destroy cultural diversity is fear mongering and is useless in any rational discussion of the matter.

Thus, globalization does not necessarily lead to cultural homogeneity. There will undoubtedly be instances in which cultural expansion will be held in check by local culture -- such as efforts to introduce hamburger joints into sacred cow India. Consumer demand will dictate consumption choices and ultimate cultural changes. With this in mind, what could we expect of a global society that is the product of globalization? If cultural homogeneity a la America and the West is not inevitable, what will be the final manifestation of a global society?

Predictions of this nature are only going to be that: predictions based on historical...

It is impossible to fully predict the final nature of the global society that is being produced in the course of the modern forces of globalization. However, we can make a few deductions based on available evidence. First, globalization is likely to intensify in the coming decades, with overall reductions in barriers to the transfer of capital and information. This will create a more connected global society in which movement is less restricted and more easily accomplished through global standardization of processes. Second, this interconnection will create a degree of cultural homogeneity, at least within sites of capital and information trade and transfer, where homogeneity will improve the efficiency of transactions. Finally, we should expect that many regional cultures will simply disappear while nearly all of the others will have to survive and adapt. That cultures must change and disappear is historically inevitable. The future global society can only appear at the expense of those cultures that cannot adapt to it.
From a social evolutionary perspective, globalization represents a shakeout of existing cultural diversity. Globalization as an event has obviously been ideal and beneficial for some culture -- such as American and Western -- while other have suffered and disappeared as a consequence -- such as many Third World cultures and societies. Globalization will never be able to destroy all cultural diversity as it expands its influence largely on local market demand. Some markets will simply resist the offerings of globalization and retain degrees of their own independence. The coming global society will be a product not only of globalization but also of those cultures that resist assimilation into the global marketplace.

Works Cited

Boggs, Carl. "Economic Globalization and Political Atrophy." Democracy & Nature: The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy 7.2 (July 2001): 303-316.

Kuhl, Jackson. "Tempest in a Coffeepot: Starbucks Invades the World." Reason 34.8 (Jan. 2003): 55-57.