Drawing on these critiques, this panel seeks to reimagine Critical Theory by bringing it into conversation with decolonial thought, historiographical critique, and postcolonial studies. In doing so, it aims to chart new pathways for a more globally attuned and politically engaged Critical Theory that can more effectively respond to contemporary challenges. The panel features four presentations, each offering a distinct perspective on this issue while maintaining a strict 12-minute limit per presentation to ensure meaningful discussion.

Joshua Dittrich’s paper, “Critical Theory as Critical Timing: Bloch, the Noncontemporaneous, and the Anthropocene,” articulates the panel’s central critique of Eurocentric temporality. Drawing on Ernst Bloch’s concept of “noncontemporaneity,” it explores how thinkers in postcolonial and decolonial studies challenge dominant historical narratives. Engaging with Dipesh Chakrabarty, Achille Mbembe, and Kathryn Yusoff, Dittrich argues that Critical Theory must reckon with heterochronic histories and geological time scales to address the complexities of the Anthropocene. Here, Bloch’s vision of history as multidimensional and opaque provides a valuable methodological and conceptual framework. His critical-utopian project and anti-fascist critique, Dittrich contends, can shed light on decolonial challenges to Eurocentric history and anthropocentric temporalities.

Building on this critique, Kajal Mukhopadhyay’s paper, “Disrupting Teleology: Critical Theory, Decolonial Historiography, and the Critique of Progress,” engages with historiographical debates by examining how W.E.B. Du Bois rethinks historical progress in relation to European historiographical traditions, specifically the critical theories of Walter Benjamin and Theodor Adorno. While Du Bois critiques the teleological interpretation of Hegelian history, he does not entirely reject the notion of progress. Bringing Benjamin, Adorno, and Du Bois into conversation, this paper argues that these thinkers develop a distinct historiographical approach that disrupts the idea of history as a steady progression and instead offers a radically different understanding of the historical processes, resisting dominant narratives of progressive reconciliation.

Chienyn Chi’s paper, “Decolonizing Raymond Williams’ Critical Theory: The Colony, the Country, and the City,” extends the panel’s engagement with history and temporality into spatial and literary dimensions. By foregrounding decolonial thought and drawing on insights from Critical Theory, Chi rethinks the spatial legacies of empire. Expanding on the critiques of linear progress discussed by Dittrich and Mukhopadhyay, Chi examines how the myth of the city as modern and the colony as primitive obscures their deep entanglement under empire. Through a reading of Fatou Diome’s The Belly of the Atlantic alongside Aimé Césaire and Raymond Williams, the paper challenges dominant spatial imaginaries, revealing how colonial conditions continue to shape urban and rural myths in contemporary literature.

The final paper, “Decolonizing Intervention: Beyond the Colonial Logic of Critical Theory,” by Yen-Jen Chen moves from theoretical critique to political praxis. It interrogates how “intervention,” a foundational concept in Western philosophy and Critical Theory, remains embedded in hierarchical structures of power. While traditional interventionist models assume the agency of a subject acting upon an oppressed Other, this paper argues that such frameworks fail in situations where minoritarian subjects are trapped between competing imperial forces, such as Taiwan and Hong Kong. Drawing on queer and decolonial thought, it proposes alternative modes of political action that resist both Western interventionism and authoritarian control.