与经济全球化不同，文化全球化会加强区域化和地方化。在文化全球化中，所有原始古老的连结纽带都彰显的十分突出。种族、性别、语言、主权、年龄、身份或者宗教等都成为二十世纪的重要议题。作为一个世界，地球村表现出紧张、冲突和歧视等诸特征，这主要是由于环境原因，但也是由于金融、贸易、旅游、移民、毒品、犯罪、暴力和恐怖主义等原因。我们需要一个和平的、融合的世界秩序，这是显而易见的。
科学和技术是促进全球相互密切联系的强大动力，但科技本身不能滋生一种和平的文化。在不同的种族群体、宗教信仰、世代之间，对话是必要的，但这一过程却是十分痛苦和困难的。容忍、认可、尊敬、相互参照和相互学习等价值对于滋养一种“对话性文明”都是极其必要的；这种对话性文明的典型代表就是Ramon Panikkar 的构思精巧的“对话性对话”，而非苏格拉底式的对话或者说教式对话。
一项富有挑战性的任务就是如何将原始性和普世性融合起来。这种融合被认定有能力避免抽象的普世主义和封闭的特殊主义这两个极端。政治化了的人权话语独独关注政治权利，侵略性的原教旨主义源自仇恨，这些都是显而易见的例子。怀着一种全球公民的理想去建构一种开放的、多元的和自我反思性的身份不仅是理想的而且也是很实际的。一个有希望的征兆就是：所有轴心时代文明，尤其是基督教和佛教，都在积极地试图在它们具体的信条教义之外去发展一种全球公民意识。对地球的关心无疑是最重要的促动力，但对社会问题的关注如减轻贫困等也是其中十分重要的因素。
地方性知识（借自克利福德·吉尔茨的意味深长的概念性工具如“深度描写”和“地方知识”等）的全球性意义，或许很有可能成为一个坚实的台阶，成为将“具体的普世性的”思维模式想象并实现为在全球性社会中张扬差异的一个基础。几十年来，全世界极为重要的绝大多数都来自西欧和北美。展望未来，无论是智性资源和精神资源，还是方法论的概念化都可能源自现代西方以外的文化。在哲学上，一种精神性的转向即将到来。儒家人道主义在过去三代内的创造性转变见证了这一必然趋势。
Cultural globalization, unlike economic globalization, enhances regionalization and localization. All primordial ties feature prominently in cultural globalization.Ethnicity, gender, language, sovereignty, age, status, or religion matters in the twentieth century.As the world, mainly for environmental reasons but also for reasons of finance, trade, tourism, migration, drug, crime, violence, and terrorism, the global village is characterized by tension, conflict, and discrimination.The need for a merging world order that is peaceful is obvious.
Science and technologies are powerful engines for facilitating global interconnectedness, but they themselves cannot cultivate a cultural of peace.Dialogue is necessary among racial groups, religious faiths, generation gaps, but the process is painfully difficult.Tolerance, recognition, respect, mutual reference, and mutual learning are values essential for the nurturing a “dialogical civilization” which is characterized by Ramon Panikkar’s felicitous idea of “dialogical dialogue” rather than ether the Socratic or the dialectic method.
The challenging task is to integrate primorduality with universality.This integration is predicated the ability to avoid both abstract universalism and closed particularism.Politicized human rights discourse with exclusive focus on political rights and aggressive fundamentalism motivated by hatred and resentment are obvious examples.The combination of formulating an open, pluralistic, and self-reflective identity with the aspiration of global citizenship is not only desirable but also practicable.A hopeful sign is that all Axial-Age Civilizations, notably Christianity and Buddhism, are actively engaged in developing a consciousness of global citizenship in addition to their specific doctrinal commitments.The care for the earth is certainly the most important impetus, but social concerns , such as poverty alleviation, are also important contributory factors．
The global significance of local knowledge (borrowing from Clifford Geertz’s suggestive conceptual apparatuses such as “thick description and local knowledge) may very well serve as a concrete step for imagining and realizing “concrete universal” mode of thinking as a basis for celebrating difference in the global community.For decades, the overwhelming majority of globally significant originated from Western Europe and North America.With a view toward the future, methodological conceptualization as well as intellectual and spiritual resources may originate from cultures other than the modern West.In philosophy, a spiritual turn is in the offing. The creative transformation of Confucian humanism in the last three generations exemplifies this inevitably trend.
