Gilligan Critique Paper

Running head: CRITIQUE PAPER ONE 1

Critique Paper One: Gilligan’s Theory of Moral Development

Loyola University Chicago

Jonathan Merrill

Bridget T Kelly, 02/13/14,

Perfect cover page

CRITIQUE PAPER ONE 2

In response to Kohlberg’s male-centered study of moral development, Carol Gilligan

developed an alternative theory of moral development by studying women considering abortion.

In contemporary society, both theories are used to frame the decision making process of students

in higher education. Although Gilligan's theory may initially seem limited in scope due to the

specific population she studied, her theory can be widely applied because the ethic of care is

central to the decision making and developmental process. The objective of this paper is to both

examine the applicability of Gilligan's theory by applying it to my past experiences and to

demonstrate its versatility in different contexts of higher education. In doing this, the benefits

and limitations of this theory will beare identified.

Care and responsibility are the central components of moral development in Gilligan's

theory (Evans, Forney, Guido, Patton & Renn, 2010). Care in this context can be understood as

"…sustaining affective ties" (Gilligan, 1987) between oneself and others. Gilligan's theory

consists of three levels with two transitions between them. Gilligan determined that the

orientation of care fluidly progressed from "…an egocentric through a societal to the universal

moral perspective" (Gilligan, 1987, p. 69). In other words, care is first focused on the self then

shifts to the other. Finally, the individual forms a more universal understanding of care, in which

care for self is held at the same level as care for others. Similar to Kohlberg and other

developmental theories, individual’s progress through development when they encounter

reasoning that requires faculties from a higher level or stage. Therefore, "…exposure to conflict,

in both opinions and reasoning, leads to moral development" (Evans et al., 2010). In Gilligan's

theory this dissonance is internal, in the form of conflicting responsibilities between self and

others (Gilligan, 1987).

Gilligan’s Theory of Moral Development


How come we do not embrace conflict more since it can lead to such growth and development?


Great preview of what’s to come


Bold statement—did you want to qualify and say “for many people,” “for this theory,” or “from my perspective.”


Among other men and women in different studies


Gilligan's Theory of Moral Development intersected with the development of my sexual

orientation. Although I came out as bisexual as a sophomore, it was not until my senior year that

I became comfortable acting on my feelings for men. The decision to tell a very close friend that

I had feelings for him was an incredibly difficult choice. Although a bit cliché, this example

resonates across the different levels and transitions of Gilligan's theory.

Level 1: Orientation to Individual Survival

In her study of women considering abortion, Gilligan (1977) found that the most basic

construction of this moral choice was centered on the self. For these women the issue was

framed around their individual survival. The key aspect of this level is the inability to

distinguish between one's desires and necessity (Evans et al., Forney, Guido, Patton & Renn,

2010). For example, a womaen at this level responded "… 'I didn't want it, I wasn't ready for it,

and next year will be my last year and I want to go to school'" (Gilligan, 1977, p. 492). The

woman’s focus in this response was on her desires and care for herself. At this stage there is no

moral decision to be made because of the lack of distinction between desire and necessity. My

initial response to having feelings for my friend was to emotionally distance myself from him.

In reflection, my reasoning for this was self-focused. By communicating my feelings for him, I

would be putting myself in a very vulnerable position and I was simply afraid of getting hurt

through rejection. At this level of decision making, I did not consider the feelings of my friend

in the act of distancing myself from him.

Transition 1: From Selfishness to Responsibility

During this transition, individuals begin to identify their previous actions as selfish and

begin to focus on their responsibility to others. Central to this transition is attachment and

connection with others (Evans et al., Forney, Guido, Patton & Renn, 2010; Gilligan, 1977).


One of the keys of this first level is that people often go into isolation and limit contacts with people to avoid pain in relationships; yet in both examples (abortion and coming out) there was pain involved, I imagine—pain at making the decision to end a life and pain at losing out on being near your friend; thus the reasoning that one can avoid pain by avoiding relationships is a faulty one—hence why, thankfully, so many people take risks of relationships after realizing this


Appreciate you opening up in this way in order to showcase the theory’s relevance in your own life


Women in Gilligan's study began to make a distinction between desire and necessity; according

to Gilligan, "…the 'selfishness' of willful decision is counterposed [sic] to the 'responsibility' of

moral choice" (Gilligan, 1977, p. 494). In my example, I realized that I could not just cut

someone off - especially a close friend - because of my own needs. I recognized that I had a

responsibility to maintain a relationship with my friend. My actions were incredibly selfish,

prompting me to apologize to him. My decision making process evolved from simply ending the

relationship to staying in a more ambiguous state. Another important aspect of this transition, as

identified by Gilligan, is "… enhancement in self-worth, it requires a conception of self which

includes the possibility for doing 'the right thing', the ability see in oneself the potential for social

acceptance" (Gilligan, 1977, p. 495). In my opinion, the right thing was maintaining the

relationship even though I had feelings for him.

Level 2: Goodness as Self-Sacrifice

Gilligan (1977) described this level as "… goodness [is] the overriding concern as

survival is now seen to depend on acceptance by others" (p. 496). Since the focus is on

maintaining relationships with others, dissonance is produced around the issue of hurting another

(Evans et al., Forney, Guido, Patton & Renn, 2010). The key to deciding between a conflict of

interests, where someone's needs will inevitably be sacrificed, is prioritizing others’ needs over

one's own to maintain social connection. One critique I had for this theory was that the transition

between level one and level two was too extreme and unrealistic. Individuals undergo a one

hundred and eighty degree change from being self-absorbed to being completely other focused.

However, in my personal example, I did perform this change. I switched my focus from how I

would feel to the position in which I would put my friend. I did not think it would be fair to put

him in an uncomfortable position. I think this extreme change was a manifestation of my


Remember this theory is based on data collected, so Gilligan just reported what she saw, she did not construct the theory for what she would like to see or believed to be right, logical, etc.


And in the abortion example, do you see the “right” thing to do?


overcompensation for previously being selfish. Recognizing that my actions were selfish,

especially at my age, caused me to overcommit to the relationship and subsequently ignore my

needs. Gilligan described the potential negative backlash of this stage: "… the public sacrifice in

the name of responsibility engendered a private resentment that erupted in anger, compromising

the very relationship that it had intended to sustain" (Gilligan, 1977, p. 497). The inevitable

outburst that occurred between myselfme and my friend definitely damaged our relationship, but

also helped to move me to transition two.

Transition 2: From Goodness to Truth

Gilligan (1977) found that women during this transition began "… to ask whether it is

selfish or responsible, moral, or immoral, to include her own needs within the compass of her

care and concern" (p. 498). Specifically, the important aspect of this transition is reconciling the

dissonance between hurt and care (Gilligan, 1977). During this transition I struggled between

these two factors. I understood that selflessly committing myself to the relationship caused me

to unhealthy repression of my feelings. However, I also recognized that in addition to putting

myself in a vulnerable position by telling him, I would be putting my friend in an uncomfortable

position as well. Honesty is an important value and I was continually being dishonest with my

friend. Finally, I continually betrayed his trust and potentially hurt him emotionally every time I

lashed out or tried to cut him out of my life. Gilligan observed this struggle in the women she

studied: "…she strives to encompass the needs of both self and others, to be responsible to others

and thus to be 'good' but also to be responsible to herself and thus be 'honest' and 'real'" (Gilligan,

1977, p. 500). The key to resolving this dissonance was developing an understanding that I had

an obligation to take care of myself in order to take care of others.

Level 3: The Morality of Nonviolence


This is definitely the crux of the theory and level 3


Avoid ending sentence with preposition


Glad you are able to see yourself in the theory because it is more difficult to analyze from a distance


In this final stage, Gilligan (1977) found that the women in her study "… elevated

nonviolence - the injunction against hurting - to a principle governing all moral judgment and

action" (p. 504). By doing so, Gilligan theorized that the women were able to find moral

equality between self and other (Gilligan, 1977). To reach this stage, however, the women had

to first have a self-concept that placed her needs on the same level as her responsibilities with

others. In doing so, the dichotomy of selfishness and responsibility dissolved (Gilligan, 1977).

Individuals at this level realize that they are connected as the idea of care encompasses both self

and others. Decisions are made understanding that to hurt one, hurts all - pushing them to adopt

the morality of nonviolence. The motivation to tell my friend was centered on understanding

that my silence had only served to hurt our relationship. Furthermore, although I acknowledged

that I may put him in an uncomfortable position, it was ultimately better to be honest and open so

that I would no longer intentionally hurt him.

In sum, Gilligan's theory of was very applicable to my decision to tell my friend that I

had feelings for him. Since I identify as a man, this suggests that there are some, if not all,

aspects to her theory that can be applied irrespective of gender. Ultimately, this is because her

theory is focused on care and the relationship between oneself and others. Oppression is another

important aspect that influenced my development along this theory. If my friend was a woman, I

believe that I would still have developed along this theory. However, since I displayed a

homosexual attraction within a heterosexual focused environment, I believe that my development

through her theory was delayed at certain levels. For example, resentment over neglecting my

needs as well as fear of his response caused me to regress to a level one response. The fear

caused me to repeat this cycle – preventing me from reaching a higher level of decision making.

Application to Higher Education


Were there any individuals or educators that helped you or could have helped you progress quicker on the theory?


And you and he as indivdiuals


Since the core of this theory is focused on one's ability to make a decision that aeffects

their relationship with another, it can be applied in a variety of different contexts within higher

education. College educators can apply this theory to any situation in which interpersonal

decision making is required. Students are challenged to consider how their choices will aeffect

themselves and others in at least two instances: in the decision to go abroad and in the decision

regarding what to do after college.

This theory is applicable to professionals working in study abroad offices. In the

decision to study abroad, first and second year students must consider several different factors.

Generally, finances must be considered. For students whose family financially supports them,

going abroad may cause a significant burden. Additionally, students who go abroad will face a

significant distance from established support systems - friends and family. Using Gilligan's

theory, college educators can help students critically look at their choice to go abroad. A student

currently on level one may not fully understand how many factors are implicated in studying

abroad. They may simply say: "I want to go abroad, so I'm going abroad." An educator working

with a student at this level may question if this student is mature enough to go abroad. The

student may encounter different world views, but be unable to fully integrate them. Using this

theory, educators can frame the conversation around how going abroad may impact other

individuals in the student’s life. In comparison, a student in the first transition or second level

may have originally expressed interest, but subsequently changed their mind because going

abroad may burden their family. Regardless of whether the student decides to study abroad or

not, educators working with this student can challenge them to first truly acknowledge their

desires and imagine a situation where their desires were equal to their responsibilities with

others.


Excellent scenarios and interventions—theory sheet work has paid off here


And may avoid building relationships with others which is a key part of studying abroad


Use different word choice since you just used it in previous sentence


Just need to note that these are examples but the theory could be applied in other areas of higher education as well


As students near the completion of their higher education journey, upper-class and non-

traditional students will again make interpersonal decisions. Educators working in Career

Centers can apply Gilligan's theory to help facilitate the conversation regarding what to do after

college. For example, a student may want to pursue a master's degree, but may also want to

pursue a salaried job in order to support their family. With the volume of choices to make and

responsibilities to consider, students in transition two may become paralyzed. The goal of

college educators should be to challenge this student to establish a conception of self that

validates both their own needs and the needs of others. By resolving the apparent dichotomy

between selfishness and responsibility, the student will hopefully be able to move from a

position of paralysis.

Conclusion: Benefits and Limitations

In sum, Gilligan's Theory of Moral Development focuses on the factors of care and

responsibility in decision making. In comparison to Kohlberg's theory, "… the moral problem is

seen to arise from conflicting responsibilities rather than from competing rights and to require for

its resolution a mode of thinking that is contextual and inductive rather than formal and abstract"

(Gilligan, 1987, p. 68). Viewing moral reasoning through the lens of care and responsibility

provides benefits and limitations. In general, our species make interpersonal decisions regularly.

This is especially true with strong familial ties. Students entering higher education may find the

freedom to make difficult decisions on their own for the first time. These decisions can range

from relationship problems, career choices, and many other every days occurrences. Therefore,

when college educators encounter students who are in the process of making decisions that

impact the relationship between oneself and others, they can apply Gilligan's theory.

Furthermore, Gilligan's theory is applicable to more thant women. As stated previously,


Very nicely-stated


interpersonal decision making transcends any one gender. However, there are limitations to this

theory. Since this theory is focused on factors that are internal to and existing between

individuals, it cannot be applied to factors existing external to the individual. For example,

Gilligan's theory may not be applicable to students who are fixated on punishment and rules.

Additionally, as examined earlier, various other types of identity development can facilitate or

impede moral development. Although individuals may have progressed through different stages

previously, both internal and external factors can cause the individual to regress to earlier levels.

References


Could use one more sentence to solidify the conclusion, but overall, terrific work. I was pleased to see you stretch and grow even from the theory sheet until now. I hope reading the primary source helped. If you are intrigued by this theory you might want to do a Poster on it and follow-up on research Gilligan did post this initial book. Best- Bridget


Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., Guido, F., Patton, L., & Renn, K. (2010). Student

development in college: Theory, research, and practice (2nd Edition). San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Gilligan, C. (1977). In a different voice: Women's conceptions of self and of morality. Harvard

educational review, 47(4), 481-517.

Gilligan, C. (1987). Women’s place in man’s life cycle. In S. Harding (Ed.), Feminism

and methodology (pp. 57-73). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Documents

Gilligan Critique Paper