I felt extremely irritated while reading the opening chapter of In a Different Voice by Carol Gilligan. I have a vague memory of learning about the work of Freud and his contemporaries in a class long ago and this reading reminded me of my previous annoyance with the obvious gender biases that were embedded in Freud’s research studies and many other pioneers in the field. I had to push myself through the first chapter but found the second chapter, which described the discussions between two sixth grade students, fascinating. While I reject the notion that the positions taken by Amy and Jake indicate anything of significance in gender development—or even moral development for that matter—I do find the commentary regarding the students’ positions interesting. Apparently, Jake’s clear stance regarding the dilemma posed equated to moral maturity on Kohlberg’s scale, while Amy’s response, “…appears naïve and cognitively immature”. Clearly Jake’s ability to choose one direction over another, articulate the logic of his decision, and demonstrate absolute confidence in his decision embodies all of the characteristics of American masculinity described in Masculinity as Homophobia. Our society values these characteristics and one could further say we ascribe them as leadership qualities. The fact that his decision could be disastrous is not relevant. Amy, on the other hand, could not be boxed in to a “door-number-one or door-number-two” decision. She perceives the world with greater complexity. It is not obvious to me whether this was the result of how she views the relationships within the scenario—as the author contends—or from something else. Either way, I concur with the author that Kholberg’s scale is clearly biased and not nearly sophisticated enough to draw any conclusions on moral development in adolescents.
I can’t help but wonder if Amy’s stubborn refusal to answer the question posed with a “yes” or “no” demonstrates qualities that our global society needs more of. Amy wants to change the dynamic altogether by finding ways to obtain the objectives while still maintaining a position of morality. We would call this a “win-win”. Perhaps our current politicians and diplomats could use these skills, rather than to decisively rush to judgment and subsequent action.
Was Amy ahead of her time?
Karen, I totally agree with your summary description of Jake and Amy's ways of reasoning and that politics today could use a little more nuance. Any political decision can be framed in a sound-bite to sound good or bad, after all, there is no decision that is good for every one. Every time one person gains something there is someone else that looses, whether it be rights or money or influence. Many times, discussion centers only around money, which is easily quantifiable, without regard for quality of life, which is much more subjective. I would be encouraged if we could adopt the "win-win" dynamic that you describe.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you said about Kholberg's scale being biased because it is. To me, Amy's answer seemed more sophisticated and moral. She took in everyone's position and thought about it. She could not come up witha definite answer or the 'right' solution. At the end of the day, is any decision 'right' for everyone. I like your idea of the "win-win" dynamic as well. It is unimportant to jump to conclusions and make decisions quickly without consideration. I think morality is what is important here. If we just sit down and think about things for a minute, considering all of the possible pitfalls and successes, maybe our decisions would be more effective and 'right' when all is said and done.
ReplyDeleteThanks! I enjoyed reading your blog : )