IMO abstract definitions of terms like "globalization" that involve bundling a set of attributes and their implicit assumptions confuses predicated and demanded outcomes.

Simplicity is usually best, and in this case a simple definition of globalization is the diffusion of things around the world. The things diffused can be economic, cultural, or whatever...but we really just mean that people in one part of the world interact with those in another and exchange something.

Including the specific things in the globalization definition is not a good idea bc it automatically excludes others, which could have equal validity. The choice of inclusion/exclusion is endogenous in that it is a choice of the person making the definition and hence based on prior beliefs, assumptions, and desired outcome.

Finally, when passing judgment on outcomes of things diffusing across peoples, there's a big difference btw voicing an opinion vs. demanding opinion necessitates forceful disruption of what people would otherwise choose to do with their own lives. Implicit in the statement that "globalization is bad and x needs to be retained in y culture" is the demand that the people in y culture obey the order to maintain x against their will. As long as what is being diffused is done so peacefully and adopted voluntarily, I see no moral right to interfere.