Question

Why was Carol Gilligan critical of Kohlberg's theory of moral development?

Short answer

Carol Gilligan was critical of Kohlberg's theory of moral development due to its heavy reliance on male subjects in his research, and the emphasis on justice over relationships and care in moral decision-making. She argued that his theory did not sufficiently account for the role of caring and relationships in moral development, particularly for women.

Step-by-step solution

Understanding Kohlberg's Theory

Lawrence Kohlberg proposed a theory of moral development that consists of three levels: pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional, each of which are further divided into two stages. According to Kohlberg, individuals progress through these stages in a fixed order, with moral judgement and reasoning undergoing transformation at each stage.

Understanding Gilligan's Perspective

Carol Gilligan, a psychologist, noticed and critiqued Kohlberg's theory. She observed that Kohlberg's research was biased as his samples included mostly male subjects. Furthermore, she challenged the progression and the universality of stages presented in Kohlberg's theory.

Gilligan's Critique of Kohlberg's Theory

Gilligan argued that Kohlberg's stages of moral development were male-oriented, with an emphasis on justice. She proposed that women tend to focus more on relationships and care when making moral decisions, therefore introducing a different perspective on moral development. Gilligan's critique essentially questions the gender bias and the rigid stage structure of moral development in Kohlberg's theory.

Key concepts

Moral Development Theory

Moral development theory explores the progression of moral reasoning from childhood through adulthood. It's about understanding what is right and wrong and how individuals make ethical decisions. Such theories aim to unpack how moral understanding evolves over time.

Lawrence Kohlberg is renowned for his theory in this domain. He suggested that people develop through a series of stages, each signifying a deeper level of moral reasoning. Carol Gilligan, however, emphasized that Kohlberg's approach did not account for different perspectives individuals might have based on their life experiences, particularly focusing on female perspectives. This initiated a broader discussion about how gender might influence moral development.

Gilligan's critiques highlight the importance of considering diverse perspectives in psychological theories, especially when they inform educational practices and moral education.

Gender Bias in Psychology

Gender bias in psychology refers to the unfair domination of one gender's experiences or characteristics in theoretical frameworks. Historically, many psychological studies have favored male perspectives, which can overlook or undervalue female experiences and points of view.

Carol Gilligan pointed out such biases in Kohlberg's moral development theory. Kohlberg's research largely used male participants, which led to conclusions that may have been more reflective of male moral reasoning at that time.

Gilligan advocated for a more inclusive approach, understanding that women's experiences might lead to different expressions of moral reasoning, stressing the importance of care and relationships over abstract justice. Her critique urges the psychological field to broaden its views and methods to include multiple genders for a richer and more comprehensive understanding of human behavior.

Kohlberg's Stages

Kohlberg's stages outline how individuals grow in ethical maturity, fundamentally structured into three major levels. Each of these contains two distinct stages:

• **Pre-conventional Level**: This is where moral reasoning is predominantly based on individual needs and consequences. Individuals in this stage think about obedience and self-interest.
• **Conventional Level**: At this point, societal norms and rules begin to shape moral judgements. People think in terms of conformity and maintaining social order.
• **Post-conventional Level**: Here, abstract principles guide moral thinking. Judgments are made based on universal ethical principles and rights.

Gilligan's critique of Kohlberg's stages emphasises that this linear progression might not faithfully represent how everyone develops moral reasoning. Her work encourages the inclusion of a more nurturing perspective, acknowledging that individuals might value relational dynamics, which may not always be sequential or hierarchical.

Justice vs. Care Perspective

The justice vs. care perspective dives into the different ways people approach ethical dilemmas. Kohlberg leaned towards a justice perspective, which values fairness, rights, and impartiality. This approach often focuses on rules and equality.

In contrast, Carol Gilligan introduced the care perspective, which sheds light on how moral decisions might be made with an emphasis on relationships and empathy. This involves caring for others and maintaining connections, considering individual circumstances and contextual factors.

Gilligan suggested that men and women might prioritize these perspectives differently. With men potentially favoring justice and women more likely to rely on care. However, these are not rigid categories, but rather lenses through which individuals might view moral issues. This duality highlights how crucial it is to appreciate multiple moral frameworks, enriching our understanding of human ethics.