The Different Voices of Morality: Carol Gilligan’s Theory of Gender Coded Ethics Riley Beckwith

Carol Gilligan Born in 1936 Currently still working as a professor at New York University and is a visiting professor at the University of Cambridge (at age 78!) B.A. in English literature- became a basis on which she approached her graduate psychology degree Taught at Harvard from Met Kohlberg and worked with him while at Harvard published her seminal work- In a Different Voice

Lawrence Kohlberg Born 1927 Originally a sailor, despite being part of a wealthy family Later became a psychologist who attempted to use Jean Piaget’s methods of development to study moral growth in children while at Harvard University His death (1987) was a mysterious drowning in a marsh several years after contracting a reoccurring and painful tropical illness- it is largely assumed he committed suicide, though nothing is known for certain

Gilligan’s Problem Developmental psychology had accepted patriarchal models of development, thus making women “other” or even INFERIOR to men in development. It also meant that men were being forced to disengage with certain critical components of human nature

Critical Terms Ethic of Care- A conception of morality involving an awareness of the crucial nature of human relationships and a need to respect your responsibilities to other people. For example, a young girl might express concern about “leaving out” a friend in a game of checkers, if they are in a group of three. According to Gilligan, this conception is more often found in females. Ethic of Justice- A conception of morality involving an awareness of individual rights and the necessity for respecting these rights and upholding them in your own actions. For example, a young boy might choose to kick his soccer ball away from anything breakable, out of a knowledge that he should seek to avoid destroying anyone else’s property. According to Gilligan, men exhibit this set of ethics more frequently, and many of Kohlberg’s dilemmas are based around this concept of morality. Gender identity- According to Kohlberg, the most salient part of a young child’s identity, as it is the one thing they define for themselves at a young age. “I am a boy” or “I am a girl” are declarations that bring them a sense a selfhood. Individuation- The ability to conceive oneself as separate and distinct from the world around oneself. According to Gilligan, psychology had emphasized development around this concept, leaving out the development of relationships Self-definition- “How would you describe yourself to yourself?” Gilligan believed that one’s self- definition led to a deeper understanding of the person’s moral orientation.

Ethics of Care vs. Ethics of Justice Ethics of Care- “What are my responsibilities to those around me, especially those I care about and who care about me?” For example, a young girl might express concern about “leaving out” a friend in a game of checkers, if they are in a group of three. Ethics of Justice- “What can I do to ensure that the way I live my life does not infringe on anyone else’s in way that would be a detriment to their rights/human dignity?” For example, a young boy might choose to kick his soccer ball away from anything breakable, out of a knowledge that he should seek to avoid destroying anyone else’s property Gilligan believed, ideally, TRUE moral development meant reconciling these two principles. However, patriarchal societies meant that women were given access only to an Ethics of Care, crippling them in issues of self-determination and individualism. Men were given the Ethics of Justice, making them fearful of expressing attachment to personal relationships, especially over and above matters of “justice” Especially visible in issue of the draft

Periods of Tension Gilligan characterized two periods of isolation and conflict in boys, and one in girls- this was when the separation of Ethics of Care/Ethics of Justice is imposed on individuals Boys- at ages 4-6 and ages High rates of ADD/ADHD and depression; in adolescence- high suicide/homicide rates Girls- ages This window was the basis of Gilligan’s “In a Different Voice” – these girls are old enough to begin to understand and verbalize what is happening to them- they are also a frequently ignored and demeaned group

Connection between Morality and Selfhood Gilligan asked young women and men to “describe themselves to themselves” The results: boys often described themselves as “good at x” and “my hair is x color”, etc. That is, they described themselves in relation to themselves as an individual person. Girls, on the other hand, referenced their connections to others in describing themselves: “I’m a good friend,” “I want to help people later in life,” “I see myself as compassionate” These results then correlated to moral dilemmas they were asked about: those who referenced others (generally girls) were more likely to reference human connections/responsibility in the dilemmas (an Ethics of Care). Those who saw themselves as purely individualistic (generally boys), were predisposed to talk about an Ethics of Justice, where the rights of others are paramount

My Research Study Based on a desire to see if Gilligan’s ideas held true in a group of four high school seniors Gilligan’s interview techniques would be used, and then followed by an assessment of moral development based on one of Kohlberg’s dilemmas (Heinz Dilemma) Kohlberg suggested that discussion was an ideal way for advancing cognition/stage movement The moral dilemma presented would be discussion based These two findings would then be compared to one another, to see not only if girls scored lower or had different priorities, but if those priorities could be predicted based on Gilligan’s interview style

Hypothesis In the Gilligan interviews, the young women and men would show different senses of selfhood and responsibility. However, as Kohlberg stressed the importance of group discussions in advancing stages, I expected the discussion process to lead the students to similar understandings of the dilemma by the end of it, thus leading to similar ratings on his scale I expected Gilligan’s priorities to show up in the discussion: girls would more frequently reference relationships, while boys would favor justice and the law. I expected all the participants to generally fall in the 3 rd or 4 th stage of moral development- however, considering that these students were already in late adolescence AND were being exposed to viewpoints beyond their own in a discussion, I expected to see some potential reaching for Stage 5 ideals.

An Interesting Dilemma for the Study Initially, I expected (and asked for) two male participants and two female participants. However, on the final forms, one participant elected not to self-identify with a gender at all This made me realized that both Kohlberg and Gilligan approached their studies with the assumption of a gender binary- something that for many individuals does not sufficiently encompass their identities. This made my initial question of how gender relates to morality more difficult, since Gilligan never addresses such individuals! With further study, this question of the gender binary and its implementation in psychology could be a fascinating exploration in its own right.

Gilligan’s Interview First, each of the four individuals were taken aside and asked two questions 1. Describe yourself to yourself 2. What does responsibility mean to you, specifically in relation to how much you owe yourself vs. how much you owe others?

Results from Interviews ParticipantSelfhoodResponsibility 1 (Male)“I’m seventeen years old, 5’7”…good at and like math.” “accountability…accepting consequences” “take care of self first, then take account for others” 2 (Female)“funny, outgoing, talk to everyone a lot…smart” “acknowledging consequences…do right even when no one is watching…not letting people down…feeling responsibility is an inward process” 3 (Female)“either easygoing or yelling…love kids more than anything in the world, good friend and compassionate, always put others before self” Analogy w/Nazi Germany- the “right thing” is not always what will keep you and others happy and healthy; “not black and white”- responsibility is to ensure happiness/health of the greatest number of people 4 (N/A)“outgoing but shy…cool”“being on time and prepared for things” self is first, if you’re okay, then look to others

Next: Heinz Dilemma In Europe a woman was near death from a very special kind of cancer. There was one drug that doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to make. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $1,000, which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying, and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said, "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it." So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife.

Discussion of Dilemma All four participants were together to hear the dilemma and respond to it in a discussion based format for about minutes. Some mediation on my part involved asking for clarification where intent was unclear, as well as asking the students to “take roles” in the story: Heinz, the druggist, a judge potentially presiding over the case, and Heinz’s wife. This means that they were asked to evaluate the situation from these particular positions. This role taking exercise closed the discussion. Each student was asked to fill out a final assessment paper, explaining their final thoughts on the Heinz Dilemma.

Heinz Dilemma Discussion Highlights 1 (Male)2( Female)3( Female)4 (N/A) Heinz shouldn’t steal, not because of law, but because he recognizes the druggist’s right Law has basis, but in this circumstance might not be relevant Should steal drug for any human, if he steals Urges group to look at it more “objectively” Suggests alternative response “situational ethics” Society makes Heinz wrong As a judge, it would be her job to prosecute Heinz Initial condemnation of druggist Difference between what is “right” and what is “good”- moral standard vs. benefit to people Heinz should go to jail because it’s not “right” to steal Issue of life vs. theft- “not sure” What if druggist needs the money? Brings up age of wife as potential factor Heinz is stealing because it’s his wife Heinz has the “right morals, wrong action” If a judge, would give him a lighter sentence

The Final Forms 1 (Male)2 (Female )3 (Female)4 (N/A) Was Heinz wrong? His actions can be viewed as both right and wrong. From the druggist’s side, yes, he was wrong. But from Heinz’s side, he is morally right because he was saving his wife. Overall, human ethics should come before society’s laws. Was Heinz wrong? According to the law, Heinz was wrong. Although, when you take the subjectivity of the situation into account, I believe Heinz was correct…it all comes down to situational ethics and whether “thou shalt not steal” takes precedence over human life. Was Heinz wrong? Right vs. Good- Heinz did what was good for himself and his spouse. However, it is still morally wrong and unethical to steal, however good the intention. While I would probably react as Heinz did, and I understand his dilemma and pain, it still doesn’t make it “okay” to steal. Was Heinz wrong? Heinz was morally right, but in the eyes of the law he was wrong. So yes, he was right, but to an extent.

So…what does this all mean? In the interviews, my male participant and female participants followed the same trends as Gilligan’s As expected, those strongly correlated to their responses to the Heinz dilemma. The male was less likely to reference relationships than the other three participants, and the females seemed to have trouble conceptualizing the problem without adding details or suggesting a solution might be met- these are all typical of Gilligan’s theory Interesting- participant 4 seemed to hover in the middle! However, despite the fact that I thought I’d see agreement on the final responses, all four participants came to different understandings, and their ratings varied from 3-5 (with several inconclusive or ponderous results). They did, however, all seem to see the issue from different angles by the end In conclusion: Gilligan’s theory seems to be supported, based on my (very small) sample size! Kohlberg's theory of discussion was less impactful then I expected (likely due to time constraints).

Problems/Complications with the Study The inability to have a second male participant The addition of a gender-unspecified participant Some participants spoke more than others in the discussion- this made rating them difficult During interviews, all of the participants noted that they had never been asked to describe themselves. Their answers often contained nervous jokes and asking for reassurances that they were answering “correctly”- they also were briefer than I had expected- giving participants the questions to consider beforehand might have helped. For Kohlberg’s discussion format- time constraints- how much impact can that have? Also in discussion- the friendships of participants made them distracted at times

Where are Kohlberg and Gilligan on the Nature/Nurture Line? Rousseau Kohlberg Gilligan* Locke

Works Cited Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Kohlberg, L. (1987). Child psychology and childhood education: A cognitive- developmental view. New York: Longman. Gilligan, C. (2011). Joining the Resistance. Cambridge, Mass: Polity Press