A third definition of the global and the local can be used to assess their dichotomy. In the third definition, the global is known as being big and the local as small. Here the dichotomy is understood in terms of the sizes and the ranges covered. Now the past two definitions are useful to understand that a dichotomy could not exist as the global and the local cultures are fast becoming interspersed with one another. They have a mutual influence on one another and it could be said that they have a great level of cultural assimilation.
The third definition attempts to present them as dissimilar but as a consequence of their dissimilarity they must collaborate with one another. For example, if global capitalism can be a culture then some aspects associated with it like that of global hegemony culture, corporate culture etc (Smart, 2007; Robbins, 2005). The opposite of this global culture would be local resistance to the corporate culture, the local communities their solidarity etc. Now here global and local culture is of two major actors but of different sizes and ranges (Gray, 2015).
The relationship between the two entities will decide how harmonious an undertaking is. “More precisely, the global would be like the queen in the game of chess, whereas the local would like the king. The global/queen is capable of great movements across the board, whilst the local/king can only move one square at a time. Otherwise, both the global and the local ought to be envisioned as chess pieces engaging each other in a common open space” (Guy, 2009, p.2). Today’s connected world does seem to make the dichotomy less obvious. It does not matter if local and global have differences and similarities.