This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Slide 1
The Different Voices of Morality: Carol Gilligans Theory of
Gender Coded Ethics Riley Beckwith
Slide 2
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 1967-2002 Met Kohlberg and worked
with him while at Harvard 1982- published her seminal work- In a
Different Voice
Slide 3
Lawrence Kohlberg Born 1927 Originally a sailor, despite being
part of a wealthy family Later became a psychologist who attempted
to use Jean Piagets 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
Slide 4
Slide 5
Gilligans 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
Slide 6
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 elses property. According to Gilligan, men
exhibit this set of ethics more frequently, and many of Kohlbergs
dilemmas are based around this concept of morality. Gender
identity- According to Kohlberg, the most salient part of a young
childs 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 ones self- definition led to a
deeper understanding of the persons moral orientation.
Slide 7
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
elses 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 elses 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
Slide 8
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 17-19 High rates of ADD/ADHD
and depression; in adolescence- high suicide/homicide rates Girls-
ages 11-14 This window was the basis of Gilligans 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
Slide 9
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: Im
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
Slide 10
My Research Study Based on a desire to see if Gilligans ideas
held true in a group of four high school seniors Gilligans
interview techniques would be used, and then followed by an
assessment of moral development based on one of Kohlbergs 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 Gilligans interview style
Slide 11
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 Gilligans
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.
Slide 12
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.
Slide 13
Gilligans 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?
Slide 14
Results from Interviews ParticipantSelfhoodResponsibility 1
(Male)Im seventeen years old, 57good at and like math.
accountabilityaccepting consequences take care of self first, then
take account for others 2 (Female)funny, outgoing, talk to everyone
a lotsmart acknowledging consequencesdo right even when no one is
watchingnot letting people downfeeling responsibility is an inward
process 3 (Female)either easygoing or yellinglove 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 shycoolbeing on time
and prepared for things self is first, if youre okay, then look to
others
Slide 15
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.
Slide 16
Discussion of Dilemma All four participants were together to
hear the dilemma and respond to it in a discussion based format for
about 15-20 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 Heinzs 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.
Slide 17
Heinz Dilemma Discussion Highlights 1 (Male)2( Female)3(
Female)4 (N/A) Heinz shouldnt steal, not because of law, but
because he recognizes the druggists 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 its 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 its his wife Heinz has
the right morals, wrong action If a judge, would give him a lighter
sentence
Slide 18
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
druggists side, yes, he was wrong. But from Heinzs side, he is
morally right because he was saving his wife. Overall, human ethics
should come before societys 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 correctit 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 doesnt 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.
Slide 19
Sowhat does this all mean? In the interviews, my male
participant and female participants followed the same trends as
Gilligans 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 Gilligans theory Interesting- participant 4 seemed to
hover in the middle! However, despite the fact that I thought Id
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: Gilligans 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).
Slide 20
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 Kohlbergs
discussion format- time constraints- how much impact can that have?
Also in discussion- the friendships of participants made them
distracted at times
Slide 21
Where are Kohlberg and Gilligan on the Nature/Nurture Line?
Rousseau Kohlberg Gilligan* Locke
Slide 22
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