The liberation of the individual and of all individuals from oppression and tutelage has been, and continues to be, the theme and political demand par excellence of modernity so far in existence.
r. hitzler (1999: 165)
The purpose of this book is to support a discourse against inequality. Our critique does not dwell on the theoretical realm of inequality, exploring its causes, determinants, and historical conditions. Similarly, we do not position ourselves at a methodological level concerning the forms and instruments used for analyzing, describing, and measuring inequality. Instead, our analysis and reflection are grounded in a distinct approach, supported by a dual process of critique—namely, an epistemological critique and a political critique, the latter complementing the former.
Regarding the first plane, we take up both Santos’ (2016) proposal regarding an epistemology of the South, and Zemelman’s (1989) proposal regarding the critical use of theories. In both cases, it is a matter of sustaining a proposal considering the social and geographical coordinates from which we situate ourselves to make our analysis and critique of inequality. We know that every social science and, especially, every proposal for social transformation does not arise from the abstraction of the observer, nor from the theory on which it is based, but are socially and historically situated and, therefore, daughters of their time and of the society to which they refer in their analysis and to which they propose their transformation projects. This is especially valid when it comes to the question of inequality. In societies constituted on the basis of structures of inequality, there will always be more than one social position and more than one social situation from which to observe society and, therefore, to understand and act accordingly in the face of the forms of inequality that constitute it.
Undoubtedly, these agendas, theories, methodologies, and research problems are formulated from specific social and geographic perspectives. They not only dictate the subjects deemed relevant but also prescribe the methodologies and theoretical frameworks for understanding them. In the context of addressing inequality, our epistemic stance is doubly critical. On one hand, we position ourselves as individuals experiencing inequality within a social structure that assigns and positions us in such a manner. From this standpoint, we can scrutinize hegemonic, all-encompassing visions and models, recognizing them as modes of comprehension originating from dominant positions within these relations and structures of inequality. By standing outside these positions, we gain a clearer perspective, acknowledging them as theoretical and methodological constructs grounded in a Northern epistemology—a way of perceiving and comprehending the social from a vantage point of height and privilege conferred by their position within the framework of inequality. In contrast, we adopt a Southern epistemology, constructing an alternative approach to observing and understanding the social. It is from this perspective that proposals for social change and alternative visions for the future emerge.
Conversely, this epistemological perspective is accompanied by an alternative approach to the role and significance of theory and empirical analysis. It involves a reconstruction—and a critique—of theories, acknowledging that they have been shaped within a Northern epistemology. As analytical categories, these theories always imply a reconstruction from the specific epistemologies of the North, referencing social categories and historical processes rooted in those particular epistemologies. Consequently, the objective is not merely to dismiss these theories and methodologies outright but to engage in a critical utilization of them. The emphasis lies on using them while subjecting them to scrutiny, pushing them to their border zones—those zones where their
Regarding the second dimension, the political critique extends beyond a geographical critique of the South to encompass its social topography. Emerging from the vantage point below, within the realm of inequality, it takes shape as a political critique—a critique not solely of inequality itself but of society as a whole. Simultaneously, the critique of theories and perspectives on inequality is inherently political. It seeks to unravel the assumptions and frameworks that underpin these theories, shedding light on the hegemonic modes of comprehending and organizing the social. These frameworks constitute the foundation upon which such theories and methodologies are constructed. In this regard, our critique of inequality is structured along four key axes:
1) First of all, we are raising a discourse against inequality as a critique of Modernity. Modernity was presented to us as a hope for progress, based on reason as its main historical driving force. In its beginnings, philosophers such as Condorcet, Godwin, and others went so far as to affirm that there would be no possible obstacle that the power of human reason and progress could not finally resolve. However, already in the second half of the nineteenth century, and more appropriately throughout the twentieth century, Modernity has been presented to us as an incomplete project (Habermas, 2014). From our perspective, this unfinished character lies in one of the vectors that make up its own foundational matrix: persistent social inequality, which not only has not been brought down by progress and human reason but constitutes one of the pillars of Modernity itself. It is the foundational matrix of modern society that includes and reproduces different forms, which are structured on the basis of relations of exploitation, domination, and discrimination that sustain capitalist progress. Inequality is not a pending issue of Modernity; on the contrary, it is one of its underlying contradictions that cannot be resolved without a radical questioning of capitalist Modernity itself.
In this sense, it is the ethical, existential, and political consequences of all forms of inequality that persist in Modernity that configure it as an unfinished project with a great pending issue, that of social emancipation with respect to all forms of inequality. It is this historical debt of Modernity that forms the basis of a new political and social project in this era of reflexive and global modernity. The project and discourse Against Inequality, thus, constitutes the theoretical, epistemic, and ideological matrix from which we can support a project of emancipation and social liberation.
Our critique is directed towards the capitalist and liberal Modernity that perpetuates various forms of social inequality. It unveils the contradictions inherent in this liberal Modernity, which, while espousing a discourse of equality, freedom, and fraternity, is paradoxically grounded in structures and relationships of domination, exploitation, and social discrimination. These structures directly undermine the very foundational philosophical principles that this modernity purports to uphold.
Secondly, this critique of Modernity does not align with a postmodern discourse on progress and development. It is not a conservative proposition aimed at preserving the existing social order by rejecting future possibilities and historical potentials. Quite the opposite, as a critique of Modernity, it not only exposes the inherent contradictions of liberal Modernity but also endeavors, in the same process, to construct a proposition for social emancipation and the political transformation of the current social order. It is a discourse that challenges the structures and relationships of inequality, yet it is rooted in the universal philosophical values and principles of equality, liberty, and fraternity.
In this sense, it is a critique and a posture of transmodernity, in the sense that Dussel (2017) gives to this term. This critique, stemming from within Modernity, transitions towards projects and proposals that go beyond its confines. In this transformative process, the critique assumes both intellectual and political dimensions. While constructing frameworks to understand Modernity, its boundaries, and contradictions, it simultaneously drives forward projects aimed at transforming Modernity itself. This progression leads to stages of social emancipation concerning the very contradictions that define it. Consequently, it constitutes an inherently political proposition,
In essence, if antimodern critique is primarily concerned with restoration and postmodern criticism tends to be conservative, transmodern criticism stands out as fundamentally emancipatory.
2) Secondly, the discourse against inequality has prompted us to draw a crucial distinction between projects focused on social equity and those centered on social emancipation. The discourse on equity, which has gained prominence in recent years, primarily revolves around establishing situations and conditions of equality. It is rooted in principles of social justice and follows a rights-based approach. On the other hand, the discourse of social emancipation is more comprehensive. It can be characterized as an equity project, but within the context of freedom. The objective is to attain equity through a process of liberation from the structures of social inequality—meaning the elimination of the conditions and structures that give rise to inequality in the first place, rather than merely addressing its consequences. Consequently, it involves both an act of equalization (equity) and an act of liberation (liberty).
While the equity project is grounded in recognizing each individual as a subject of rights, aiming to identify inequality as an act that infringes upon individual rights and liberties, the emancipation project takes a structural approach. In this context, inequality is conceptualized as a framework contributing to the formation of disparate and differentiated social subjects. This introduces a dual level of distinction compared to the former perspective: first, inequality addresses social subjects such as classes, genders, ethnicities, generations, nationalities, among others; second, the critical focus is not solely on the social distance between these subjects, but rather on the connections—the relational structures—that define them as unequal to each other. Inequality is not merely a structure violating the rights of each individual—although it undoubtedly does so—but it also emanates from and is shaped by structural processes determining the distribution of resources, privileges, power, and hegemonies among these subjects, thereby establishing them as distinct and unequal social categories.
In this context, the discourse of emancipation is more extensive and profound, encompassing the discourse of equity within a framework that advocates for liberation from the shackles of inequality. This liberation involves freeing individuals from the relations of domination, exploitation, and discrimination that underlie all forms of social inequality. As we’ve emphasized throughout this book, a useful way to grasp the difference between equity and emancipation is to consider the unequal situation of enslaved persons in societies built on slavery. In such a setting, no matter how liberal or progressive,
Social emancipation involves establishing conditions of equality within contexts of liberty. Its foundation is not solely ethical, moral, or philosophical—although these aspects are also relevant—but fundamentally political. While equity is rooted in principles of social justice and ethics, emancipation is guided by a political principle of freedom among equals. It recognizes that true freedom cannot exist within structures of inequality. Mere equalization in rights, resources, or status falls short unless accompanied by acts of liberation from the structures that create disparate social categories and subjects. This is not a philosophical or ethical discourse on equality but rather a political discourse against inequality as a structural condition that imposes limits and restrictions on people’s freedoms.
Figure 4 depicts this thesis and highlights the distinctions between egalitarianism, equity, and emancipation. Like any visual representation, it simplifies and abstracts the underlying idea to its most fundamental form.
Graphic difference between equality, equity and emancipation
source: international women day, 2023. equality and equity as political principles, consulted on december 15, 2023.
Figure 4 illustrates the concept of equity. The context, represented by the fence, constructs inequality, turning differences among subjects into modes of inequality. Equality, or equalization, involves distributing the same resources to all, addressing the inequality generated by the context. The equity strategy goes beyond equal distribution to each subject; instead, it allocates resources based on the distance necessary to be equal to others. Equity corrects the distance resulting from the context but does not eliminate or dissolve it.
In contrast, emancipation tackles the root of the problem—the origin of inequality (hence its radical nature): the context. Instead of relying on a redistribution strategy (boxes) to equalize conditions of inequality, emancipation establishes a liberation strategy from the structural condition that generates inequality—it removes the fence. By doing so, it essentially “destroys” the structures on which inequality was previously built.
Equity, therefore, is not an act of liberation but rather an equalization based on an ethic of social justice: it distributes resources according to differentiated needs, differences generated by the condition of inequality. The structural condition fostering inequality is maintained, and equity acts to correct its effects.
3) In the context of advocating a project Against Inequality, we specifically address all existing forms of social inequality, placing emphasis on the comprehensive understanding of all these forms rather than singling out a select few, regardless of how fundamental or influential they may be perceived. What is essential is the development of a theory of inequality that not only enables the comprehension of its manifestations and consequences but also facilitates an understanding of its origins and social structuring.
In the 1970s and 1980s, amidst the ongoing reconstruction of the left and critical thought, the notion that everything is politics emerged. Some interpreted this as a devaluation of politics, suggesting that if everything was politics, then nothing is political—i.e., nothing held political significance. This perspective paved the way for an individualistic ethos that rejected political action—questioning and challenging power. In this view, everything seemed confined to the private and individual sphere. Consequently, if any emancipation project made sense, it was perceived to be solely for and from the individual, rather than for the collective or the public.
On the contrary, for another perspective, the idea that everything is politics entailed the necessity to discern a relationship of power and domination in
From this critical and radical standpoint, politics, pertaining to power and domination, is forged from the grassroots, emanating from the lower and internal realms of society itself. According to this perspective, power relations are not confined to specific spaces, situations, or forms of social interaction. Instead, they persist and renew in every situation and in every relationship among social subjects, as each interaction inherently carries political dimensions, involving projects of domination and counter-power. Politics, therefore, extends beyond the traditional realm of the polis and is interwoven into the spheres of oikos and demos. Any act of exploitation implies an exercise of power, and similarly, all manifestations of discrimination are rooted in power relationships. In our context, aligned with this perspective, the notion that “everything is politics” should be interpreted as asserting that the political defines a
[B]reath that crosses all human relationships. There is politics between man and woman, masters and servants, teacher and student, physician and patient, artist and buyer, and in any private relationships, just as in the public sphere there is a politics of law, of the economy, of culture and religion, and a social policy together with the politics of the State and parties in the proper sense.
plessner, 2018 [1931]: 86. Our translation
Put differently, in seemingly benign and everyday relationships such as doctor-patient, teacher-student, man-woman, or any other dynamic that involves a form of power and domination of one over the other, all other forms of power, domination, and discrimination are replicated. In settings like a doctor’s office, the interaction between the doctor and patient goes beyond their roles and introduces additional layers of inequality. This relationship brings forth gender dynamics, influenced by the gender of both the doctor and the patient. Simultaneously, it incorporates class dynamics and intergenerational dynamics, along with relationships between individuals of different and unequal nationalities, and so forth. The rationale behind this is that, as we have argued throughout this book, every form of social inequality represents a comprehensive social phenomenon, inherently encompassing all other dimensions and fields that contribute to its constitution. What unfolds daily in various realms of social life is mirrored in the “grand” arenas of power. For instance, every
In alignment with our perspective on inequality, the notion that everything is politics is also interpreted as inequality is everywhere, extending beyond the realms of economy, politics, or the public sphere. However, the fact that social inequality is present in every corner of society does not mean, even remotely, that it is a project of contingencies—that is, limited to the partial, local, or individual concerns. On the contrary, it acknowledges that in every corner of society the various forms and modes of inequality are reproduced and, therefore, that the discourse against inequality requires the articulation of all of them in a proposal of mutual interdependence—that is, of totality. The struggle for the emancipation of women lacks meaning and significance if not intertwined with the fight for the liberation of indigenous peoples, which, in turn, needs to be connected with the struggle for the emancipation of workers, and so forth—encompassing every conceivable field of inequality. Likewise, the struggle for the liberation of labor from capitalist chains, to express it in orthodox Marxist terms, cannot be comprehended nor holds any significance unless it is linked with the struggle for the liberation of women, and both are connected with the struggles for the emancipation of peoples and ethnic groups facing racism and xenophobia. If inequality is considered a total social phenomenon, then emancipation struggle must be embraced as a total social process.
4) Finally, our proposition for a discourse against inequality, forming the basis of a project for social emancipation, is grounded in the thesis that inequality serves as the foundational relationship of society. Rousseau, among the first, argued that private property and the associated inequality are the roots of civil society, positioning economic inequality as the origin and bedrock of society. Building on this notion, Marx and subsequent thinkers supported the idea that throughout human history, societies have been shaped by diverse configurations of relations involving domination, exploitation, and social discrimination. Marx linked these to varying modes of production across historical periods.
From this perspective, we recognize that the current mode of constituting social inequality—modern, liberal, and capitalist—is also historical and, therefore, susceptible to transformation and transcendence. There are at least two possible perspectives for this: a conservative one, based on the emergence of alternative historical configurations of relations of exploitation, domination, and social discrimination; and a radical one, grounded in processes of social emancipation and liberation from the chains of social, political, and economic
Historically, the predominant approach has been the first one, with human history marked by diverse modes of historical constitution of social inequality, blending different forms of class, gender, ethnic, racial, national, geographic, and generational inequality, among others.
However, this reflection and critique of history and its various modes of inequality provide an opportunity, as never before, to question these modes and envision alternative worlds rooted in processes of social emancipation. If inequality has been part of foundational matrix of society, critique inequality at this level can serve as a mediating force for a radical and more comprehensive critique against society itself. Therefore, at this plane, a discourse against inequality, operating on this dual epistemological and political level, also evolves into a project of social emancipation.