Teacher Tea
Exploring the Interplay Between Gender and Social Experiences
How do societal expectations and gender roles influence social experiences in men and women?
In “In a Different Voice: Women’s Conceptions of Self and Morality,” for the Harvard Educational Review, professor Carol Gilligan critiques traditional developmental psychology, particularly Kohlberg's theory of moral development, for neglecting women's moral reasoning. She argues that male-centric theories prioritize autonomy and abstract reasoning, and often mischaracterize women’s relational and contextual approaches to morality as deficient. Drawing from interviews with women contemplating abortion, Gilligan identifies a distinct “feminine voice” in moral development that accentuates responsibility both towards oneself and others. She outlines three stages of women’s moral reasoning: an orientation to individual survival (which focuses on self-interest), goodness as self-sacrifice (which prioritizes societal expectations and selflessness), and the morality of non-violence (which seeks to balance care for others with personal integrity, with an emphasis on non-violence). Gilligan advocates for integrating women’s experiences into developmental theory in order to create a more inclusive understanding of moral growth, one that affirms relational thinking over abstract hypotheticals.
For a bit of context: Kohlberg's theory of moral development describes how individuals progress through three levels of moral reasoning, and is reflected in Gilligan’s three stages of the “feminine voice.” The three levels, according to Kohlberg, are preconventional, conventional, and postconventional. In the preconventional level, morality is based on self-interest, such as avoiding punishment or seeking personal gain. The conventional level focuses on social approval and maintaining order, with actions guided by adherence to norms and laws. In the postconventional level, morality is defined by abstract principles like justice and equality, and prioritizes universal ethical values over societal rules. Kohlberg believed that all individuals advance through these stages sequentially, although not everyone reaches the highest levels.
The full article can be accessed via the link below.
Gilligan's work, while valuable in centering women's voices in moral discourse, presents a potential challenge. By emphasizing a “feminine voice” in moral reasoning, it risks inadvertently reinforcing essentialist views of gender. While effectively critiquing Kohlberg's male-centric framework, Gilligan's concept may oversimplify the diversity within gender.
We must acknowledge that not all women relate to her description of relational morality, and some men may also prioritize relational thinking themselves. This suggests a potential oversimplification, limiting the complexity and fluidity of moral reasoning beyond gendered categories.
While some readers will undoubtedly find resonance in Gilligan's arguments, a more nuanced approach might consider these traits as inherent human tendencies rather than rigidly defined gender-specific patterns.
In either case, understanding the distinctions between men and women, or boys and girls, can be useful in the classroom. Recognizing that boys and girls may have different learning styles and social dynamics allows teachers to tailor their strategies for diverse needs. This awareness also helps teachers avoid reinforcing stereotypes, and ensures that both male and female students feel supported in pursuing their individual strengths. Ultimately, embracing such differences supports a more effective educational experience for all students.