The idea of a singular style is something rooted in Western civilisation over the centuries. This is because Western art was for a long time influenced by Plato's ideas of universality; that there was a single ideal for everything, including art. So the truth of any matter could not be two things at once but either/or. This idea persisted in Christendom and even after the Enlightenment, through the Modernist period. The various manifestos made during the early Modern art period are remarkably like religious creeds. They are rigid, dogmatic with an emphasis on correct ways of approaching art (orthodoxy) versus incorrect ways of doing art (heresy).
The world (or I should say 'worlds') we live in now is post-modern. It is characterised by eclecticism, pluralism, multi-culturalism and relativism. All of these traits involve a belief that there is more than one right way of doing things, more than one culture worthy of respect, a subjective rather than objective understanding of truth and a frequent recourse to many influences when creating music, art or drama. I think that life has been this way pretty much constantly since the late 1980's and early 90's. Before that, movements could easily dominate and unify cultures. Now it is much harder to be part of something that most people relate to. Everyone has different interests. Everyone has different worlds and even within ones own local community there are a multitude of them.
Nevertheless, there seems to be a resistant urge to unify ones creative output into a singular recognisable style. Why this is I do not know, but I think it is definitely a Western phenomenon and centuries of ideology, manifestos, dogma and creeds (which are quite alien to Indic cultures) has left its mark in everything we do, say and see. Most of the time we don't even recognise it.
I think eclecticism is nothing to be frightened of. Picasso was eclectic and he even said that God was an eclectic artist. Some artists are more eclectic than others, allowing the subject matter to dictate the style. Their works are not instantly recognisable and only identifiable by the signature, so broad is their creative output.
So my advice would be, don't try to homogenise everything. You are living at a time when eclecticism is commonplace. Some of my work, resembles cubism, german expressionism, neo-expressionism, symbolism and surrealism. I have certain themes or favourite subjects and ways of depicting them, but I don't want to be one of these artist's who paints the same thing over and over again with minor variations. That is boring. Eclecticism is the spouse of creativity. Style can quickly become an envious and posessive lover. Beware.