There are many reasons to think that globalization might undermine cultural diversity:

• multinational corporations promote a certain kind of consumerist culture, in which standard commodities, promoted by global marketing campaigns exploiting basic material desires, create similar lifestyles--"Coca-Colanization"
• backed by the power of certain states, Western ideals are falsely established as universal, overrriding local traditions--"cultural imperialism"
• modern institutions have an inherently rationalizing thrust, making all human practices more efficient, controllable, and predictable, as exemplified by the spread of fast food--"McDonaldization"
• the United States exerts hegemonic influence in promoting its values and habits through popular culture and the news media--"Americanization"

But there are also good reasons to think that globalization will foster diversity:

• interaction across boundaries leads to the mixing of cultures in particular places and practice--pluralization
• cultural flows occur differently in different spheres and may originate in many places--differentiation
• integration and the spread of ideas and images provoke reactions and resistance--contestation
• global norms or practices are interpreted differently according to local tradition; the universal must take particular forms--glocalization
• diversity has itself become a global value, promoted through international organizations and movements, not to mention nation-states--institutionalization

To some extent, the issue of diversity is now the subject of global cultural politics, and therefore unlikely to be settled by argument and evidence. Scholars can offer some cautions:

• whether diversity diminishes depends on what yardstick you use (e.g., linguistic diversity may be more threatened than culinary diversity)
• homogenization and heterogenization may actually operate in tandem or even reinforce each other