“Decoloniality and Decolonizing Critical Theory” by Jake M. Bartholomew: Summary And Critique

Introduction: “Decoloniality and Decolonizing Critical Theory” by Jake M. Bartholomew

“Decoloniality and Decolonizing Critical Theory” by Jake M. Bartholomew first appeared in the journal Constellations in 2018, presenting a critical analysis of the limitations of Critical Theory when seen through the lens of decolonial thought. Bartholomew critiques the Eurocentric roots inherent in Critical Theory, particularly its traditional allegiance to a European trajectory of rationality and progress, as initially established by the Frankfurt School. The article explores how theorists like Horkheimer, Adorno, and Habermas, though critical of European rationality, still uphold Europe as a central stage in intellectual history. Bartholomew argues that to genuinely decolonize Critical Theory, one must not simply integrate decolonial insights as a corrective to Eurocentric perspectives; rather, Critical Theory should be reoriented to prioritize and adopt decolonial frameworks. This approach posits that the project of decolonization should go beyond mere inclusion of diverse perspectives and should question the universal applicability of European modernity and progress itself. Bartholomew’s work is significant in literary theory and philosophy as it urges scholars to reassess and potentially realign the scope of Critical Theory to foster dialogues that are more inclusive of marginalized epistemologies from the Global South, thus addressing colonial legacies in theory and methodology.

Summary of “Decoloniality and Decolonizing Critical Theory” by Jake M. Bartholomew

• Critical Theory’s Eurocentric Limitations: Bartholomew critiques the Eurocentrism embedded in Critical Theory, noting that it inherently views history and rationality through a European framework. He explains that while Critical Theory critically examines European rationality, it remains tethered to “an account of the history of reason that retains a certain Hegelianism, with Europe being the stage of history” (Bartholomew, 2018, p. 2).
• Need for a Decolonial Turn: Bartholomew argues that the necessary reorientation requires a “decolonial turn” where Critical Theory adopts a perspective based in decolonial philosophy rather than simply incorporating decolonial insights as an addendum. He writes, “to attempt to integrate the insights of decolonial thought into Critical Theory…is to engage in the project from the wrong direction” (Bartholomew, 2018, p. 3).
• Challenges with Integrating Decolonial Thought: Attempting to reconcile Critical Theory with decolonial perspectives reveals foundational conflicts, particularly around concepts like progress and modernity, as Bartholomew cites Amy Allen’s assertion that decolonial critiques require “a questioning of modernity as concept, which entails a criticism of the concept of progress itself” (Allen, 2016, pp. 8–16).
• The Coloniality of Power: Drawing on Aníbal Quijano’s concept, Bartholomew emphasizes that modernity is inseparable from coloniality, where “coloniality of power” involves not only economic control but also racial hierarchy and Eurocentric subjectivity (Quijano, 2000, p. 533). This idea underlines the argument that Critical Theory must recognize colonialism as foundational to its own structures.
• Critical Theory as a Decolonial Resource: Bartholomew suggests that Critical Theory could be re-appropriated by decolonial thinkers, seeing its critique of reason as valuable when applied outside of European contexts. He notes Enrique Dussel’s integration of Critical Theory, where Dussel “identifies what is valuable in the different iterations of Critical Theory and [applies it] in the philosophy of liberation” (Bartholomew, 2018, p. 9).
• Moving Beyond Eurocentric Universalism: Bartholomew highlights the issue with Eurocentric universalism, critiquing Critical Theory’s tendency to position Europe as a universal model of rationality. He argues that “universal history must be held to ambivalently, ‘constructed and denied’” (Adorno, 1973, p. 320), advocating for a more pluralistic understanding of rationality informed by diverse cultural perspectives.
• Learning from Indigenous Perspectives: The article also engages with Walter Mignolo’s insights on integrating indigenous worldviews, asserting that a decolonial approach must acknowledge different “cosmologies” of knowledge rather than subsuming them into European rationality. This is illustrated by Mignolo’s example of Subcomandante Marcos’s encounter with Mayan cosmology, where “both histories have their reasons” (Mignolo, 2011, p. 220).
• Decolonial Praxis over Theoretical Dependency: Rather than adapting Critical Theory to incorporate decoloniality, Bartholomew advocates for decolonial thinkers to take charge of their own intellectual traditions, moving beyond theoretical dependency on Europe. He concludes, “It is not the job of decolonial thinkers to fix the errors of European philosophers insofar as they are Eurocentric…this merely reinforces a sort of theoretical dependency on Europe” (Bartholomew, 2018, p. 11).

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Decoloniality and Decolonizing Critical Theory” by Jake M. Bartholomew

Literary Term/Concept	Definition/Explanation	Reference
Eurocentrism	The prioritization and centrality of European culture, history, and intellectual tradition, often implying that Europe is the primary site of rationality, progress, and historical significance. Critical Theory is critiqued for its attachment to this perspective, even while criticizing aspects of European rationality.	“It retains within it an account of the history of reason that retains a certain Hegelianism, with Europe being the stage of history” (Bartholomew, 2018, p. 2).
Decolonial Turn	A shift in perspective that advocates for viewing Critical Theory through a decolonial lens, rather than integrating decolonial insights into Critical Theory. This turn implies that decolonial insights should form the framework, challenging the Eurocentric foundation.	“If Critical Theory is to be decolonized it must first take on the decolonial perspective and then see what is left of Critical Theory after the shift” (Bartholomew, 2018, p. 3).
Coloniality of Power	Concept developed by Aníbal Quijano, describing the persistent hierarchical and racial structures created during colonization, which continue to shape power relations globally. This framework critiques European modernity by linking it to colonial exploitation and racial categorization.	“Coloniality thus refers to… the racial classification of the world’s population via the racialization of relations between the colonizer and the colonized” (Bartholomew, 2018, p. 9).
Critical Negativity	A concept derived from the first generation of Critical Theory that emphasizes critique as a form of resistance against dominant structures. This negativity is applied by decolonial thinkers to expose and resist Eurocentrism within Critical Theory itself.	“From the first generation of Critical Theory we must recover…Negativity, as part of that materiality a critical negativity” (Bartholomew, 2018, p. 10).
Locus of Enunciation	Walter Mignolo’s term, referring to the specific geopolitical, cultural, and historical context from which knowledge is produced and articulated. This concept is central to decolonial thought, which emphasizes perspectives from the Global South.	“The decolonial project requires an interrogation of what he refers to as the loci of enunciation” (Mignolo, 2005, p. xx; cited in Bartholomew, 2018, p. 11).
Cosmology	In decolonial discourse, cosmology refers to distinct worldviews or systems of knowledge. Bartholomew argues that European rationality is just one among many cosmologies, challenging the notion of a universal rationality.	“Once it is understood that both histories have their reasons, it is only an unconscious structure of power that can decide which one is history and which is myth” (Mignolo, 2011, p. 220; cited in Bartholomew, 2018, p. 10).
Universalism	The idea that certain principles, often Eurocentric in origin, are universally applicable. Bartholomew critiques this within Critical Theory, arguing that universalism can obscure and invalidate diverse cultural and historical experiences.	“Universal history must be held to ambivalently, ‘constructed and denied’” (Adorno, 1973, p. 320; cited in Bartholomew, 2018, p. 9).
Geopolitics of Knowledge	A concept by Walter Mignolo that addresses how knowledge production is influenced by colonial history and power dynamics. This concept advocates for an acknowledgment of non-European sources of knowledge as equally valuable.	“A Critical Theory beyond the history of Europe proper and within the colonial history of America…becomes decolonial theory” (Mignolo, 2005, p. xx; cited in Bartholomew, 2018, p. 11).
Critical Historiography	The re-examination and reinterpretation of historical narratives, especially regarding colonialism and modernity. This approach critiques Eurocentric historiography by emphasizing the importance of indigenous perspectives and the colonial encounter.	“The uncovering of the reality of Latin America before the conquest…recognizing the reality of indigenous traditions of thought” (Bartholomew, 2018, p. 6).
Immanent Critique	A method of critique that seeks to reveal contradictions within a system or theory from within its own logic or assumptions. Bartholomew discusses how decolonial thinkers use this technique to challenge the Eurocentric basis of Critical Theory without fully discarding it.	“Helps us reformulate their [Adorno and Horkheimer’s] understanding of immanent critique” (Zambrana, 2015, p. 111; cited in Bartholomew, 2018, p. 7).

Contribution of “Decoloniality and Decolonizing Critical Theory” by Jake M. Bartholomew to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Critical Theory and Eurocentrism: Bartholomew’s work significantly contributes to the critique of Eurocentrism within Critical Theory by addressing its limitations in fully confronting colonial legacies. He argues that Critical Theory, rooted in the Frankfurt School, retains a Eurocentric bias that positions Europe as the primary locus of rationality and progress. He critiques this tendency, stating that Critical Theory must recognize “its inherent Eurocentrism” to evolve into a truly universalist project (Bartholomew, 2018, p. 2).
2. Decolonial Thought’s Influence on Critical Theory: The article advances Decolonial Theory by proposing that decolonial thought should not merely supplement Critical Theory but should instead reframe its foundational assumptions. Bartholomew suggests that Critical Theory’s efforts to incorporate decolonial insights risk reinforcing Eurocentrism unless they adopt a “decolonial turn,” where “the insights of Critical Theory [are integrated] into decolonial philosophy” (Bartholomew, 2018, p. 3). This approach challenges Critical Theory’s universal claims and calls for a pluralistic framework that honors diverse intellectual traditions.
3. Postcolonial and Decolonial Critique of Modernity: Bartholomew addresses Postcolonial and Decolonial Critiques of Modernity by questioning the universality of European models of progress and modernity. Referring to Amy Allen, he argues that a truly decolonized Critical Theory must “question modernity as a concept, which entails a criticism of the concept of progress itself” (Allen, 2016, pp. 8–16). This perspective challenges traditional assumptions in Critical Theory, which historically foregrounded European experiences of modernity as normative.
4. Geopolitics of Knowledge: Bartholomew builds on Walter Mignolo’s Geopolitics of Knowledge by advocating for a shift from European-centric intellectual traditions to include diverse “loci of enunciation,” which recognizes the importance of knowledge produced in the Global South (Bartholomew, 2018, p. 11). This perspective underscores how intellectual production is shaped by historical power dynamics, aligning with decolonial critiques that urge scholars to “interrogate” these Eurocentric perspectives (Mignolo, 2005, p. xx).
5. Immanent Critique for Decolonial Praxis: Bartholomew engages with Immanent Critique as a method to revise Critical Theory from within, preserving its critique of domination while challenging its Eurocentric roots. Drawing on theorists like Rocio Zambrana, he suggests that “immanent critique” can reveal contradictions in Critical Theory’s universalist claims, making it a valuable tool for decolonial thinkers (Zambrana, 2015, p. 111; Bartholomew, 2018, p. 7). This approach provides a means to utilize elements of Critical Theory in a way that aligns with decolonial objectives.
6. Decoloniality and Identity in Literature: By emphasizing the concept of Coloniality of Power from Aníbal Quijano, Bartholomew contributes to literary theory by addressing how identity and subjectivity in literature are deeply affected by colonial legacies. He notes that “coloniality thus refers to the racial classification of the world’s population via the racialization of relations between the colonizer and the colonized,” which influences how identities are represented and understood in literary narratives (Quijano, 2000, p. 533; Bartholomew, 2018, p. 9). This perspective encourages literary theorists to critique representations of identity through a lens that acknowledges the impact of colonialism.
7. Integration of Indigenous Epistemologies: The article advances Indigenous Epistemologies in Literary Theory by urging Critical Theory to respect and include indigenous perspectives and cosmologies, rather than subsuming them under European rationality. Bartholomew highlights Mignolo’s example of Subcomandante Marcos’s integration of Mayan cosmology, showing that different “cosmologies” of knowledge must be seen as equally valid intellectual traditions (Mignolo, 2011, p. 220; Bartholomew, 2018, p. 10). This integration challenges Eurocentric views and enriches literary analysis with diverse epistemological perspectives.
8. Critique of the Universalist Narrative in Literary Historiography: Bartholomew contributes to Critical Historiography by questioning the universal applicability of European narratives of progress, suggesting a need for a more pluralistic approach to historical narratives in literature. He asserts that “universal history must be held to ambivalently, ‘constructed and denied’” (Adorno, 1973, p. 320; Bartholomew, 2018, p. 9), encouraging scholars to critique historical assumptions in literary texts through a decolonial lens.

Examples of Critiques Through “Decoloniality and Decolonizing Critical Theory” by Jake M. Bartholomew

Literary Work	Summary of the Critique	Relevant Concept from Bartholomew’s Work
Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad	A decolonial critique would address Conrad’s portrayal of Africa and its people as the “Other” against which European “civilization” is defined. Bartholomew’s approach would challenge the Eurocentric narrative in Conrad’s depiction of Africa as a mysterious, chaotic backdrop for European characters’ moral struggles, critiquing its colonial gaze.	Eurocentrism and the Coloniality of Power – Bartholomew (2018) argues for recognizing the persistence of colonial power structures in literature.
Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe	Using Bartholomew’s framework, Achebe’s novel could be seen as a work that critiques the imposition of European values on Igbo society. Achebe’s narrative exposes the harmful effects of colonialism and resists Eurocentric portrayals of Africa. A decolonial reading would emphasize how Achebe centers indigenous knowledge systems, challenging Western conceptions of “progress.”	Loci of Enunciation and Indigenous Epistemologies – Bartholomew (2018) advocates for centering perspectives from the Global South.
Wide Sargasso Sea by Jean Rhys	Through Bartholomew’s lens, Rhys’s novel critiques the colonial power dynamics that shape identity and mental health, particularly in Caribbean settings. The protagonist, Antoinette, reflects the “othering” of non-European characters within a European framework, illustrating the destructive effects of colonialism on personal and cultural identity.	Coloniality of Power and Identity – Bartholomew (2018) highlights how colonial structures impact identity and subjectivity.
The Tempest by William Shakespeare	Applying Bartholomew’s ideas, a critique of The Tempest would focus on the depiction of Caliban and his subjugation by Prospero, framing it as an allegory of colonial power. Bartholomew’s critique would emphasize the play’s Eurocentric view of the colonized as inferior, requiring European “civilizing” efforts.	Decolonial Turn and Eurocentric Narratives – Bartholomew (2018) argues that literary critiques must challenge the Eurocentric assumptions inherent in classic texts.

Criticism Against “Decoloniality and Decolonizing Critical Theory” by Jake M. Bartholomew

• Over-reliance on Decolonial Frameworks May Undermine Critical Theory’s Established Insights: Critics argue that Bartholomew’s call to reframe Critical Theory through a strictly decolonial lens might lead to an abandonment of valuable insights provided by the Frankfurt School’s original critiques of capitalism, reason, and social power dynamics.
• Risk of Essentializing Eurocentrism: Some scholars contend that Bartholomew’s work may inadvertently essentialize Eurocentrism, treating it as a monolithic concept rather than acknowledging the diversity within European intellectual traditions that critique Eurocentrism from within, such as the works of Adorno and Foucault.
• Limited Practical Pathways for Integrating Decolonial Thought: Critics argue that while Bartholomew highlights the theoretical importance of integrating decolonial thought into Critical Theory, he does not offer specific, actionable steps for doing so, making his proposal appear more abstract than practical.
• Ambiguity in Defining the Decolonial Turn: Bartholomew’s call for a “decolonial turn” is seen as ambiguous and undefined by some critics, who question whether this turn implies a complete rejection of Western theoretical frameworks or a selective integration. This ambiguity may lead to misinterpretations of how Critical Theory could evolve with decolonial insights.
• Potential Oversight of Intersectional Perspectives: Some critics point out that Bartholomew’s focus on decolonial thought may overlook intersectional perspectives, such as gender, sexuality, and class, which are also significant in analyzing Eurocentrism and colonial power structures.
• Risk of Intellectual Dependency on Decolonial Theory: While Bartholomew advocates for moving away from Eurocentric thought, some critics argue that over-reliance on decolonial theory could create a new form of intellectual dependency, limiting Critical Theory’s adaptability to diverse sociocultural contexts.
• Exclusion of Alternative Postcolonial Perspectives: By emphasizing decolonial theory over postcolonial approaches, Bartholomew may exclude significant contributions from postcolonial scholars who critique Eurocentrism but advocate for different solutions or integrations with Western theories.

Representative Quotations from “Decoloniality and Decolonizing Critical Theory” by Jake M. Bartholomew with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“It is the last limitation, its inherent Eurocentrism, that has been most resisted integration…” (p. 2).	Bartholomew highlights the difficulty Critical Theory has in addressing its Eurocentric bias, which limits its ability to be universally applicable and inclusive of non-European perspectives.
“If Critical Theory is to be decolonized it must first take on the decolonial perspective…” (p. 3).	He suggests that decolonizing Critical Theory requires a fundamental shift in perspective, where decolonial insights form the foundation rather than merely supplementing existing theory.
“Coloniality thus refers to… the racial classification of the world’s population…” (p. 9).	This quotation discusses Aníbal Quijano’s concept of coloniality, showing how colonialism established racial hierarchies that still influence power dynamics and cultural narratives globally.
“Universal history must be held to ambivalently, ‘constructed and denied’” (p. 9, citing Adorno, 1973, p. 320).	Citing Adorno, Bartholomew argues that the concept of universal history should be questioned, acknowledging the plurality of histories and perspectives rather than one Eurocentric narrative.
“It is not the job of decolonial thinkers to fix the errors of European philosophers…” (p. 11).	Bartholomew asserts that decolonial thought should not aim to “correct” Eurocentric views but instead should develop independently, creating knowledge from diverse cultural standpoints.
“To attempt to integrate the insights of decolonial thought into Critical Theory is…from the wrong direction” (p. 3).	He emphasizes that decolonial insights should not be superficially integrated into Critical Theory; instead, Critical Theory should be re-envisioned with a decolonial foundation to address its Eurocentrism effectively.
“A Critical Theory beyond the history of Europe proper and within the colonial history of America…becomes decolonial theory” (p. 11, citing Mignolo, 2005, p. xx).	Bartholomew, quoting Mignolo, argues that shifting the focus from European history to colonial histories enables Critical Theory to become genuinely decolonial, re-centering marginalized narratives.
“From the first generation of Critical Theory we must recover…Negativity, as part of that materiality a critical negativity” (p. 10).	He suggests preserving the “critical negativity” from early Critical Theory, as it allows for questioning of dominant narratives and structures, making it a valuable tool for decolonial thought.
“Once it is understood that both histories have their reasons, it is only an unconscious structure of power that can decide which one is history and which is myth” (p. 10, citing Mignolo, 2011, p. 220).	This quotation critiques the Eurocentric hierarchy that labels non-European perspectives as “myth” while treating European narratives as “history,” calling for equal recognition of diverse epistemologies.
“It is because those who would follow Habermas have finally come around to the question of colonization…” (p. 2).	Bartholomew points out the delayed recognition of colonial critiques in Critical Theory, noting that addressing colonialism has only recently become a focus within certain branches of Critical Theory, especially those influenced by Habermas.

Suggested Readings: “Decoloniality and Decolonizing Critical Theory” by Jake M. Bartholomew

1. Bartholomew, Jake M. “Decoloniality and decolonizing Critical Theory.” Constellations: An International Journal of Critical & Democratic Theory 25.4 (2018). https://bearworks.missouristate.edu/articles-chpa/68/
2. Betts, Raymond, and Raymond F. Betts. Decolonization. Routledge, 2004.
3. Laenui, Poka. “Processes of decolonization.” Reclaiming Indigenous voice and vision (2000): 150-160. https://sjsu.edu/people/marcos.pizarro/maestros/Laenui.pdf
4. Memmi, Albert. Decolonization and the Decolonized. U of Minnesota Press, 2006.
5. Duara, Prasenjit, ed. Decolonization: Perspectives from now and then. Routledge, 2004.