12.1 Gilligan’s Revision of Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development
The originator of the ethics of care was Carol Gilligan, an American ethicist and psychologist. In her Different Voice (1982) Gilligan created her model as a critique of her mentor, developmental psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg’s model of moral development which we explored in section 3.2 of this book. Gilligan observed that measuring moral development by Kohlberg’s stages of moral development found boys to be more morally mature than girls, and this result held for adults as well. Gilligan argued that Kohlberg’s model was not objective, but rather a masculine perspective on morality, founded on principles of justice and rights. She further posited that men and women have tendencies to view morality in different terms. Her theory claimed women tended to emphasize empathy and compassion over the notions of morality in terms of abstract duties or obligations that are privileged in Kohlberg’s scale.
Taking it to the Streets…
Is Gilligan on to something here? Do men and women reason to moral solutions differently? You might test this hypothesis by sharing the following hypothetical with two friends, one who identifies as male and the other who identifies as female.
You find yourself in a rowboat on rough seas searching for other survivors of your luxury liner shipwreck. To your right you spy with your binoculars several children you do not know clinging desperately to a piece of wreckage. To your left at an equal distance you spy one child trying to stay afloat. This child is yours. It is clear from the storm that you will not have time to save everyone, you must decide to row to the right or to the left. Which way do you row?
Ask each friend to talk you through his/her moral reasoning. Did they reason differently? Did they come to different conclusions? Did their reasoning confirm Gilligan’s contention that men and women approach ethical decision making differently?
If you like, try this altered scenario with the same or different friends and see if there are any important changes.
You find yourself in a rowboat on rough seas searching for other survivors of your luxury liner shipwreck. To your right you spy with your binoculars several children you do not know clinging desperately to a piece of wreckage. To your left at an equal distance you spy elderly neighbor Ruth trying to stay afloat. It is clear from the storm that you will not have time to save everyone, you must decide to row to the right or to the left. Which way do you row?
Did the reasoning change in any significant way? Did this second scenario illustrate Gilligan’s contention better?
As logical as they sounded, Kohlberg’s stages of moral development were not sufficient for understanding the full development of moral beliefs. To see why, suppose that you are a teacher and have a student who asks for an extension of the deadline for an assignment. The justice orientation of Kohlberg’s theory would prompt you to consider issues of whether granting the request is fair. Would the late student be able to put more effort into the assignment than other students? Would the extension place a difficult demand on you, since you would have less time to mark the assignments? These are important considerations related to the rights of students and the teacher.
In addition to these, however, are considerations having to do with the responsibilities that you and the requesting student have for each other and for others. Does the student have a valid personal reason (illness, death in the family, etc.) for the assignment being late? Will the assignment lose its educational value if the student has to turn it in prematurely? These latter questions have less to do with fairness and rights, and more to do with taking care of and responsibility for students. They require a framework different from Kohlberg’s to be understood fully.
Gilligan’s approach centered on a morality of care, a system of beliefs about human responsibilities, care, and consideration for others. Gilligan proposed three moral positions that represent the breadth of ethical care. Unlike Kohlberg, Piaget, or Erikson, she does not claim that the positions form a strictly developmental sequence, but only that they can be ranked hierarchically according to their depth or subtlety. In this respect her theory is “semi-developmental” in a way similar to Maslow’s theory of motivation.2 This chart summarizes the three moral positions from Gilligan’s theory:
|
Moral Position |
Definition of What is Morally Good |
|
Position 1: Survival orientation |
Action that considers one’s personal needs only
|
|
Position 2: Conventional care
|
Action that considers others’ needs or preferences, but not one’s own
|
|
Position 3: Integrated care
|
Action that attempts to coordinate one’s own personal needs with those of others
|
Let’s explore these three positions using the case of a child in a classroom who exhibits signs of having been bullied or abused.
Position 1: Caring as Survival
If the child who is being bullied or abused takes a “caring as survival” approach, their primary concern would be their own wellbeing and safety. This is a completely valid and healthy response in this situation. The child speaking out about the bullying or abuse, even at the expense of the bully/abuser’s needs, demonstrates a survival-oriented morality. They are rightly focused on caring for themselves first and foremost. This level of moral development is the most basic, but it is crucial in cases where a child’s fundamental needs are not being met.
Position 2: Conventional Caring
A child operating from a “conventional caring” mindset would be more concerned with maintaining harmony and pleasing others in the classroom. They may be reluctant to speak up about the bullying or abuse because they don’t want to disrupt the status quo or get the bully in trouble. This child might try to minimize the issue or go along with what others expect, rather than asserting their own needs. The conventional caring approach values social cohesion and avoiding conflict, even at the cost of the child’s personal wellbeing. While this level of moral development can be useful in some classroom settings, it ultimately fails to address the child’s own needs and does not promote their healthy development.
Position 3: Integrated Caring
The most mature approach would be “integrated caring,” where the child considers the needs and values of everyone involved, including their own. This child might speak up about the bullying or abuse but does so in a way that takes into account the potential consequences for the bully, the teacher, their classmates, and themselves. They would try to find a solution that balances the needs of all parties as much as possible. This level of moral development is the most complex, as it requires the child to navigate competing priorities and moral dilemmas. However, it is also the most comprehensive and likely to lead to the best overall outcome for the child and their classroom community.
References:
2. Brown & Gilligan, 1992; Taylor, Gilligan, & Sullivan, 1995
