questions about power, as well as looking at fresh figurations not normally
examined as civilisations. Arnason for one is receptive to suggestions of further revision. In his view, civilisational analysis cannot exhaust understanding
(Arnason, 2010) and ‘should not be mistaken for an attempt to subsume everything under civilisational categories’ (2011b: 117). When couched in these
terms, civilisational analysis appears responsive to criticisms from within and
from without. There is a small criticalreception of Arnason’s work. A number of the criticisms
it held the audience spellbound. (Denby 1986: 109)
Graham knew very well how to present and perform a sic-sensuous, a
presentation of an aesthetic not always considered beautiful experienced
between two sensing bodies.
Slightly more light-hearted but no less criticalreceptions of Graham
are quoted in Copeland’s book on Merce Cunningham, Graham dancer
turned into revolutionary in his own right. In reference to titles in characters in her Dark Meadow, such as One who Seeks, He who Summons,
The One who Speaks, Copeland terms Graham herself: ‘she whose head
civilisational level (see also Unay and Senel, 2009), Cox’s axiomatic comments are a significant contribution from the political sciences to the paradigm
of civilisational analysis. They have not gone unnoticed and not escaped criticalreception. The detractors cannot be addressed here, excepting one observation.
Cox’s advanced theory of international political economy is the most striking
attempt to marry civilisational analysis and a version of Marxism, and none of
the critics address this aspect of Cox’s work.
Cox’s vision of a pluri-civilisational normative global order