People within local culture have very specific attributes that connected them. They understand their interests and how they are common. Although there were some opinionated differences, homogenization is seen to exist on a large level. Ordinary people’s feelings and taste were mostly similar, except for a small minority that attempted to operate at an elite or global level. However, before the age of interconnectedness even these minority segments were seen to align more closely to where they lived. Place and locality mattered to these people. As Appadurai (1990) writes, even if they were transnational workers they were still very strongly rooted in local community structures. They had common perceptions and were not afraid of holding onto their cultures and beliefs. Appadurai present the homogenization led people to become more aligned with their cultures, beliefs and values more than others (Appadurai, 1996).
The local cultural values were challenged over the years. As researchers noticed over years the developmental theories started to see more of a cultural mingling rather than coherence. Culture inherited from ancestors was no longer held that way (Colic – Peisker, 2010). It was seen that culture was more of a newer set of ideas that people from different ends agreed with. An adaptation of elements of culture was seen to lead to global cultures which influenced local cultures lead to globalization. In fact, even in the past settings it was held that local culture would in fact have also held minority groups that were more attuned with global culture. There were specific elite groups within local cultures that connected with elite forms of thinking in other local cultures. This constituted global cultures. Though they were a minority, it was still seen that they disengaged from specific localities. Not everybody was elite. Some of them were differentiated in their thinking processes.