What is missing from current definitions of Globalisation?

You see, its come under my attention that there are are so many definitions of this topic that everyone could have an opinion of something that was missing. We get so caught up in the idea of this interconnectedness of everything that embodies globalisation and that everything is wrapped in a neat little bow but there is something I feel is missing. Ranatanen (2005:8) saw Globalisation as a mediation or common understanding, a fair agreement between ideas of trade, technology, finance etc. This argument was spoken about in my last blog. Alternatively, Albrow (1990:45) saw globalisation as a single world society. That is an excellent opening for this blog entry because realistically, its one of the most common definitions, what's often left out is something that goes along with this definition and that is something that some people may find to be somewhat out there but I feel its not really a capitalization of life (to which you could argue) but really creating a mainstream of this globalisation. Look at what technology has done for our daily lives in regards to globalisation. I can communicate, bank, order food, order a taxi, turn off a light in my house all from my palm on my phone. I say main-streaming because this is essentially becoming the norm, to which other countries yet to experience globalisation would miss out on.