in a different voice

by Carol Gilligan.

When I got this book I was very enthusiastic about it because it had been cited in several other media I was interested in. It was cited in Eve and the Choice Made in Eden, which I also wrote about in my blog. They also discussed in a different voice on one of the episodes of the college courses they have on channel 9, Ethics and Values.

In this book, Gilligan revisited some studies about moral reasoning and development in children at the age of 11 and then age 15. In the study the children were asked the question called Heinz's dilemma where there is a man whose wife is sick needs a particular medicine or she will die. The medicine costs $2000.00 but Heinz has only has $1000.00. Should he steal the drug? The boys in the study usually answered either yes, he should steal the drug, or no he shouldn't steal it. The girls usually went around the question and came up with different solutions such as having fund raisers or lobbying the government etc. The girls thought about the relationship between the man and his wife. If he steals the drug and she doesn't die then if he goes to prison he will not be able to take care of her.

When the study was interpreted, the boys were seen as having higher moral reasoning than the girls because the answered the question posed: yes or no, and here's why. The girls appeared not to know what they thought because they didn't answer the question directly but went outside of the perameters.

Gilligan's reinterpretation of the study was that the girls had a different moral reasoning style than the boys. The boys think in more black and white moral terms, while the girls think in terms of relationships, negotiating what brings the greatest good to the most people.

Another study that Gilligan conducted involved asking the children questions about themselves, how they reason, and how they see themselves in the world. The boys' language was more hierarchical and autonomous and the girls' language reflected connectedness and relationships.
In another study the participant is to look at a picture and write the story they think it portrays. The men described the pictures with a person alone or in competition as positive and the pictures with connected people as violent and threatening. The women described the pictures with the person alone or in competition as violent and threatening, and the pictures with connected people as positive.

She concluded through these studies that men relate to the world in a hierarchical manner, while women relate to the world in an interconnected web-like manner.
I think in general this is true, however, I wanted to see this study done in a more scientific manne. She used mostly case studies to illustrate her point and I would have liked to see a larger sample size.

I loved the first three and the last two chapters of the book but I didn't like the middle as much because I am pro-life and she did studies what led women to come to the decision to have an abortion. A less controversial issue would have been a better way to prove the point about how women make important decisions. However, it seemed to me that, like the studies above, the women made decisions based upon relationships. The ones that decided to go through with the abortion had no support from their parents, boyfriends, or counselors to discuss their options. They felt cornered because of the relationships that had failed them. So I think a pro-life activist would get better results from treating abortion as a social problem rather than a moral failing, and offering these young women more support for them and their babies.

I am glad I read this book because of its insights about the difference between the moral reasoning and values of men and women.