by Miguel S. Zanella

The views and opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the MPSA (Midwest Political Science Association). Any content provided is for informational purposes only and should not be taken as official statements or endorsements by MPSA. 

 

Section 1: Etymology – Philosophical, Scientific, and Lexicographical Perspectives 

The term emancipation derives from the Latin emancipatio, which referred to the act of freeing a son from paternal authority, allowing him to act legally on his own. This etymological root highlights the idea of liberation from a prior authority or tutelage. 

Contemporary definitions show a conceptual convergence: 

  • Spanish (RAE): “Action and effect of emancipating or becoming emancipated.” 
  • Portuguese (Priberam): “Act or effect of emancipating; state of one who, free from any tutelage, can manage their assets freely.” 
  • French (Larousse): “Action of freeing oneself from a bond, an obstacle, a state of dependence, domination, or prejudice.” 
  • English (Cambridge Dictionary): “The process of giving people social or political freedom and rights.” 

These definitions emphasize the transition from a state of dependency to one of autonomy, whether in economic, legal, social, or identity terms. 

In philosophy, Immanuel Kant, in his essay “What is Enlightenment?” (1784), defines emancipation as man’s exit from his self-imposed immaturity, understood as the inability to use reason without the guidance of another. For Kant, emancipation is a process of self-liberation through the public use of reason. 

Karl Marx distinguishes between political emancipation and human emancipation. The former refers to obtaining civil and political rights, while the latter involves overcoming material conditions of oppression, especially in the context of labor and private property. 

Michel Foucault introduced the notion that power and knowledge structures shape subjectivities. Emancipation, in this sense, implies a critique and resistance to the forms of power that mold behavior and thought. 

Byung-Chul Han argues that in the performance society, the individual self-exploits under the illusion of freedom, and true emancipation would require a critique of the structures promoting this self-exploitation. 

Lastly, Amartya Sen defines emancipation as the expansion of real capabilities for people to choose and lead the life they value, emphasizing the importance of material and social conditions that enable effective freedom. 

These perspectives converge on the idea that emancipation is not merely the absence of restrictions, but the presence of conditions that allow for self-determination and active participation in social and political life. 

 

Section 2: Historical Context – From Normative and Cultural Emancipation to Communicative Autonomy 

Historically, emancipation has been linked to the liberation from legal and social tutelage, such as paternal authority or slavery. However, in the contemporary era, characterized by globalization, digitalization, and economic interconnection, forms of dependence and control have evolved. 

Global economic interconnection has created new dynamics of power and tutelage conditions, visible in differing approaches: As some examples following the U.S. with a capital-oriented model, Spain with a protectionist orientation, and Japan as a capital-driven economy central to global finance. 

In April 2025, President Donald Trump announced a universal 10% tariff on all imports to the U.S., along with higher tariffs for countries with significant trade deficits with the U.S., such as China (34%) and the European Union (20%). These measures, implemented without Congressional approval, were justified as efforts to reduce the trade deficit and strengthen domestic industry. 

In May 2025, the U.S. Court of International Trade declared these broad tariffs illegal, arguing that the president overstepped legal authority by imposing them without explicit authorization. The White House has announced plans to appeal the decision, potentially escalating the case to the Supreme Court. These trade policies have sparked tensions with global trade partners and contributed to increased financial market volatility. 

In Spain, the tax structure imposes high levies, such as the Personal Income Tax (IRPF), which can reach up to 56% in some autonomous communities. These taxes affect both individuals and businesses, fueling debates about the fairness and efficiency of the tax system. 

Internationally, the “carry trade” involving the Japanese yen (updated to May 2025) illustrates how monetary policy decisions can have global repercussions. The Bank of Japan had maintained ultra-low interest rates, encouraging investors to borrow yen and invest in higher-yield assets elsewhere. However, in April 2025, facing inflationary pressure and a falling yen, the bank hinted at potential rate hikes, triggering global uncertainty that jeopardized institutional funds exposed to derivatives and high-yield bonds. This episode revealed the vulnerability of interconnected economies to asymmetric monetary decisions. 

These dynamics demonstrate how economic and political structures can impose tutelages that limit individual autonomy, especially when decisions are made without effective citizen participation. The investor, understood as one who risks capital and generates employment opportunities, requires certainty to continue their productive activities amid ever-changing state, financial, and cultural frictions. Likewise, the individual contributing time and labor needs a stable environment to offer services, engage in community life, support family or loved ones, and build identity through meaningful interaction with the world. 

 

Section 3: Path to the Current Problem and Conceptual Output from Etymology 

In the current context, the individual faces new forms of tutelage that limit autonomy: 

  • Subjective Sphere: Productivity algorithms and performance metrics can constrain self-exploration and personal authenticity. 
  • Relational Sphere: Corporate culture and hyperconnectivity can erode intimacy and reciprocity in human relationships. 
  • Public Sphere: Technocracy, artificial intelligence, and the global market can replace democratic deliberation with technical decisions, distancing individuals from shaping social norms. 

These frictions displace individuals from the center of social activity, turning them into data objects, consumers, or value producers rather than deliberative and autonomous agents. 

 

Section 4: Conceptual Proposal 

Actors in friction—investors, workers—must be institutionally recognized to sustain civic life. Productivity changes are accelerating under very old institutional dynamics, raising questions about the legitimacy of modern political systems: from democracies and autocracies to power divisions, state functions, and private capital. Emancipation, in this sense, is not a vague need, but a tactical and concrete necessity concerning various components of the contemporary social structure. 

For example, in the labor sphere, corporate cultures that enforce excessive work hours—such as some consultancies demanding over 80 hours a week—represent a form of tutelage that limits worker autonomy. In the technological sphere, companies like Google dominating search and advertising markets create barriers to competition and restrict user choices. In contrast, countries like China and Brazil have developed local alternatives—like Youku vs. YouTube or Baidu vs. Google, and in Brazil, platforms like Globoplay vs. Netflix or search engines integrated with telecom services—that promote greater digital ecosystem diversity and autonomy. 

These examples highlight the need to foster structures that allow individuals to exercise autonomy and actively participate in building a more equitable and deliberative society. We propose to redefine emancipation as: 

“The process by which individuals, recognizing and resisting tutelages imposed by social, economic, and technological structures, exercise their capacity for reason and deliberation to actively participate in the construction of shared norms and meanings, thereby achieving effective autonomy across subjective, relational, and public spheres.” 

This definition acknowledges that contemporary emancipation is not limited to legal tutelage liberation but involves active engagement in shaping the structures that affect both individual and collective life. 

Emancipation is an individual necessity in the face of capital, state regulations, and corporate dominance. The contemporary question is whether a balanced orientation toward the full development of the human condition can be tactically achieved. 

 

References 

  • Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Pantheon Books, 1977. 
  • Han, Byung-Chul. The Burnout Society. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2015. 
  • Kant, Immanuel. “An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?” (1784). 
  • Marx, Karl. Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844. Translated by Martin Milligan. New York: International Publishers, 1964. 
  • Sen, Amartya. Development as Freedom. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1999 

 

About the Author

Miguel Sánchez Zanella is an emerging scholar of political theory with academic roots in political science and business. He earned his B.A. in Political Science from the Universidad Central de Venezuela, where he first cultivated his fascination with political theory and focus on Postmodernism & Development. Over the past decade, he pursued a career in business development and corporate finance, honing his strategic and analytical skills. He is now refocusing some of his efforts into his career on political theory, leveraging insights from his corporate experience to inform his scholarly pursuits. Forward-looking and intellectually driven, he aims to bridge practical insights with theoretical frameworks, bringing a fresh perspective to contemporary political discourse.

Connect with me: Linkedin —> https://bit.ly/4iycpXi