{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018554062699936022, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.982142857142857, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Grounds for engagement: Dissonances and overlaps at the intersection of contemporary civilizations analysis and postcolonial sociology

This article elucidates grounds for engagement between two fields of the social sciences engaged in critique of Eurocentrism: contemporary civilizations analysis and postcolonial sociology. Between the two fields there are both evident dissonances and points of potential dialogue and engagement. The article identifies three areas of high contention: divergent perceptions of essentialism, commitments to transformative politics and evaluations of the paradigm of multiple modernities. Despite extensive theoretical and normative differences, a notional intersection of the two fields is outlined in the form of three conceptual and methodological shifts. The first is a displacement of ideal typology. The second move is the most original. ‘Intercivilizational encounters’ and ‘intracivilizational encounters’ are re-cast as ‘intercivilizational engagement’. The goal is the demarcation of a discrete position based on a strong version of interaction that goes further than the notion of intercivilizational encounters recently re-developed in civilizational analysis. To illustrate potential grounds for engagement on this point, the article reviews the historiography of ‘connected histories’ and the insights of relational historians. Finally, the article urges for a nuanced definition of ‘region’ and deeper appreciation of the multiplicity of regionalisms as a meeting point for both fields of critique of Eurocentrism.