Proportionalism or liberalism—Two ideas of social justice

Abstract

Proportionalism' refers to the general idea that, in a well ordered society, people sharing different socio-demographic background variables such as sex, race or class should have a proportional representation in either advantageous or disadvantageous groups. If this is not the case, discrimination is indicated. The central proposition of proportionalism is that direct discrimination can be justified as a counter-measure against indirect or structural discrimination. Liberalism opposes direct individual discrimination, whether positive or negative, but then has to justify aspects of measured differences at the group level. To examine and penetrate whether taken positions represent special interests or perceptions of justice, certain reverse cases are discussed. Should we take actions that promote white basketball players or reduce male over-representation in prisons? The central argument in this article is that the liberal position is less dependent on the equality assumption, the cornerstone of proportionalism. Once the difference between groups is overlapping and not categorical, a case can be made for the liberal approach. The natural equilibrium might be equality, but this is not necessarily the case. Even when an average difference between two groups exists, a skilled individual should not be dismissed because of her group average, nor should a less capable individual gain credit based on the average of his group. To a high degree, proportionalism is a transfer of credit based on group characteristics to some individuals, and often touted from positions of under-representation. The justice of this is discussed. Proportionalism is often considered a just goal, but unfortunately, it is burdened with methodological problems that even its proponents find dubious. Further, the basic intentions of proportionalism may be questioned. We conclude that the liberal view evokes a more trenchant solution.