In my most cynical state of mind, the Global Village has become merely a metaphor for what is no less than the domination of American culture on the world stage. Techo-Utopians (and there were plenty at ISEA) continue to refer to technology -- particularly networking technology -- as the solution to many economic and social troubles. But bring up the issue of the implications of such technology on global culture, and it is met either with a collective brush-off or Californian-esque notions of the new unity of humanity.
	Unity and homogeneity are two very distinct principles, and the lines between the two continue to blur. A "village" has a common culture which holds it together. Here in Toronto, where the notion of culturally-specific districts within a large urban metropolis actually works, the binding unit of the city is the complimentary relationship between what you are and where you are, and the negotiations between the two. An Italian in Toronto probably considers herself to be Italian first, then Canadian, then a citizen of Toronto.
	The same idea across the entire world, however, is much more complicated because of the different socioeconomic and political practices of different nations. There is little cultural commonality to bind a Global Village unless technology and its related tools can do it.
	And do it, it does. Wiring the planet for telephone and broadcast use was the first step towards the Global Village, as McLuhan pointed out. This infrastructure was to pave the way for what has become a resulting merging of ideas (though some would argue not merging enough), materialistic fetishes, linguistic expressions, and globalist worldviews. The "we-should-all-be-one-culture" mentality seems to be favored only by those who are threatened the least by such change. Would people in American culture want to move closer to South Asian culture if South Asians represented the dominant culture in the world?
	Somewhere along the line, there must be a way of combining the inevitability of the advancement of networking and broadcasting technology with the uniqueness of human diversity. But how possible is that when it means our tools -- and therefore, parts of our language -- become common? Is globalism inevitable? Will the rich tapestry of cultures be turned into a Darwinian struggle?