It was supposed by some and alleged by others that when conditions are right and when needed tools are available, people will get closer to each other, in the meaning that their values and thoughts and views regarding the whole world will be more similar and cohesive than before.
What happened was different, as many factors that form the basic structure of societies and communities cannot take part in a realm created by united thoughts and ideals and newly discovered methods and ethics-related principles. The most important of those factors is religion. Its roots go way back hundreds of years (if not thousands) and each one of the various facets of faith in different parts of the world created its own view of life, the universe and what humans should mean within it. Religions forced their own moral codes and ethical elements to be implemented on societies; they divided people into followers, non-followers (in the case of followers of other religions) and non-believers. Thus, it was totally hard for any modern system to come and challenge the hierarchy that was formed and the structure that was already present. Mostly, globalization is still being fought by religious people and by priests and clerics and rabbis because it opens the eyes of people to the world that they were forbidden, by their religious leaders, to see. And this is viewed as a serious threat by those leaders, a threat they are ready to fight in every way possible.
The second party that is opposed to globalization and homogenizing of peoples is nationalists. The main idea to love one’s country is, by and of itself, a call to reject any unification with other peoples. Nationals tend always to emphasize on points like: Our nation is the best and most exceptional in the world; we have qualities that no other nation has, we are superior. To convince individuals of such ‘superiority’, the only thing any nationalistic regime can do is to isolate the people and close them within one country, so that they do not have any possibility to compare. This is practically putting barriers between peoples. And it is clear that globalization provides people with tools that allow them to break through that wall and that barrier and to take a look at the other side.
It is not true that the global application of communication technologies and information exchange will make it easier to eliminate the differences between varied cultures and ways of life, especially concerning traditions that have been culturally and geographically isolated from each other. The idea that new ways are coming to old traditions created something that was not even heard of before, it created calls for struggle against the elimination of culture and religion and tradition and ways. And economically, instead of pushing nation-states and peoples to produce more and better using the elements provided by globalization, it became a reason for them to isolate themselves with the excuse of protecting national values, industries, heritage and life.
What is mentioned above does not mean that globalization failed everywhere, instead it worked very well in the west and, to some extent, in countries like Japan and South Korea. Its effects are felt deeply in countries like Russia, Israel and some countries in South America. But the fact remains that in countries which are more influenced by more rigid religious structures, and in countries ruled by ideological and nationalistic regimes, there is still a long way to go. And globalization has what it takes to prevail in the end.