Gender and Morality

In the 1960's, Lawrence Kohlberg began a now famous study leading to a ranking of levels of moral development.  In the study, participants were told situations that involved moral dilemmas and asked what the characters should do next.  The answers were arranged along a line of continuing maturity, leading from a base of selfish ego-centrism to the highest levels of universal principles.

The problem was that females rarely made it beyond the intermediate levels.  The boys and girls ranked fairly equally when tested in childhood, but in adolescence and beyond, women seemed "stuck" in a moral life dominated by choices made depending on relationship issues.  Adolescent and adult men, however, went "beyond" relationship issues and lived a moral life determined by "rules" and finally by "universal truths and principles."  Women also seemed to "waffle" in their decisions, finding it difficult to decide what the characters should do.  Men seemed to know.

The conclusions reached in the study were that females were less "morally mature" or less "morally intelligent" than males.  Carol Gilligan, who had worked with Kohlberg on these original studies, disagreed and began to look for other interpretations.

What she discovered is something which women know intuitively, but which has been sorely lacking in the classical developmental literature.  Boys and girls are different.

Gilligan's findings are presented here, not necessarily as my own views, but to invite readers to examine their own opinions and behavior, and those of their children, and to speak out about what they find.

Gilligan makes it cleat that she is not describing every girl and every boy, but a tendency that seems to divide along gender lines.  She finds that girls' morality seems to revolve around preservation of relationships, and making decisions in ways to "help the most and hurt the least."  Boys, on the other hand, tend to organize their decisions around rules and "justice", and people's rights.

Gilligan looks at the play of children in our society to find the early values and interests of the two genders.  Boys' play is more organized.  There are actual games with rules, such as sports.  The rules are agreed on in advance, and don't generally cater to the bonds between people, or their needs.  Conflict is decided by the internal "justice" of the game; there are built-in penalties for "wrong" behavior.  Such "fouls" are usually handled within the game, and don't cause it to end.

Girls, on the other hand, engage in much less structured play.  Their "games" are more free-form and the "rules" seem to differ in response to a variety of situations, relationship issues, and individual needs.  Conflicts are more disturbing, and often regarded as betrayals of the relationship, frequently bring the play to a halt.

These same trends appear in adult life as well.  Many of men's activities, whether in sports, business, or organizations, are governed by rules, ranked position, ownership, ethics, seniority, etc.  Men often find family interactions frustrating when they don't follow these rules.  Women, on the other hand, whether in work, home or social activities, tend to use very different principles to guide their behavior.  They tend to think about how their behavior affects the other person, and try to juggle everyone's feeling and well-being when it comes to making a decision.

These differences often bring men and women into conflict with each other, and certainly contribute to difficulty in understanding each other.  Women often accuse men of using power and rules where they aren't necessary or even where they seem cruel.  Men accuse women of being weak, indecisive, and giving in.  Gilligan's position is that we can no longer look at the male perspective as superior, but we need to regard the female model as a legitimate alternative.

It is hard to say if these differences are based in biology of the genders or in the way we raise our children.  The outcome in this society, however, seems to be that boys are taught to be "fair" and girls are taught to be "kind".  The behaviors which follow from each of these two value systems will be very different, though each person will be acting in good faith.

It seems to me that these issues are of great importance in our society today.  What is "good" for us as a society?  Is human life preserved best when the world of business flourishes or when ecology and relationships are maintained?  What do we do when laws or business principles conflict with physical or emotional health?

What do you think? Do you see the differences that Gilligan speaks about?  What are your own and your partner's ideas of morality, and what do you teach your children?  How do you see our society's moral functioning?  I would be very pleased to hear from readers about these issues and would welcome your comments!

Meg Alonso, M.A., V.M.D., NCPsyA