Nowadays modern architecture often lacks the local identity and culture. I think its important to understand and incorporate local architecture traditions. So how much modernity is enough or appropriate?
Cultural identities are multi-layered. Even as an individual, I am a mother, wife, daughter, sister, architect, researcher and lecturer. Rather than studying global vs. local, why not try to understand this layered nature? Why not raising understanding for the common grounds, as well as for what is unique in each one of the layers? Modern architecture does not necessary needs to lack local identity, and if it does, it has been the decision of some to apply it. So, it does represent the identity of someone. Society is to determine, what is enough and appropriate. And they do. Perhaps when you study all those identities you will find more common ground than you now foreseen. Good luck!
Modern Architecture through its rejection of anything traditional or vernacular has creates a 'gap' within the architectural continuity in a region. In the belief of being technologically rational and globally aligned, Modern architecture has created placeless (often senseless) buildings in rich architecture-cultures. However, through the discourse we have seen examples of Critical Regionalism (Frampton) and also Counter(Critical) Vernacular like Lauri Baker from India. Practices like Baker in India exhibits a critical employment of modernity without losing the belongingness. Other than that, it addresses the needs of its users, economy and ecology.
You may like to read more.
Laurie Baker: A model for Sustainable Architectural Design
We also find Baker's idea to be Gandhian along with the contemporary practice of Hunnarshala in Bhuj, India. You can read more athttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/313586507_A_Gandhian_Framework_for_Social_Design_The_Work_of_Laurie_Baker_and_Hunnarshala