Gilligan vs. Kohlberg: A Clash of Moral Development Theories
The landscape of moral development has been significantly shaped by two towering figures: Lawrence Kohlberg and John Gilligan. Their theories, while both aiming to understand how humans develop a sense of right and wrong, offer distinct perspectives, often leading to what is popularly framed as a “clash.” This divergence primarily stems from Gilligan’s critique of Kohlberg’s earlier work, which she argued was biased towards a male perspective.
Kohlberg’s stage theory of moral development, building upon Jean Piaget’s work, proposed a universal, hierarchical progression of moral reasoning. He identified six stages, grouped into three levels: pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional.
Gilligan, a student of Kohlberg, initially applied his framework to her research on women’s moral decision-making. What she discovered led her to question the universality of Kohlberg’s model.
Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development
Kohlberg’s theory is perhaps the most influential in the field of moral psychology. He posited that moral development is not just about knowing rules, but about the reasoning behind one’s judgments.
His research involved presenting participants with hypothetical moral dilemmas, most famously the “Heinz dilemma,” where a man must decide whether to steal a drug to save his dying wife. The focus was on *why* people made the choices they did, rather than the choices themselves.
Level 1: Pre-conventional Morality
At this foundational level, morality is largely based on self-interest and the consequences of actions. Children in this stage tend to obey rules to avoid punishment or gain rewards.
Stage 1: Obedience and Punishment Orientation. The child is good in order to avoid being punished. If he has to choose between obeying a rule and helping someone he cares about, he might save the person he cares about but he would expect that person to help him in return. If you let your child steal a drug for his dying wife, he is doing it because he loves her, and you should not get angry at him, he is doing something that he thinks is right.
Stage 2: Individualism and Exchange. Children at this stage recognize that there are other people with different points of view and that these viewpoints might differ from their own. The child will begin to recognize that others have needs and desires, and that sometimes these can conflict with their own. The “right” action is one that satisfies their own needs. For example, a child might reason that if it is acceptable to break a rule in one situation, it is acceptable to break it in another.
Level 2: Conventional Morality
This level is characterized by adherence to social conventions and laws. Individuals at this stage see morality as maintaining social order and fulfilling duties.
Stage 3: Good Interpersonal Relationships. This stage is focused on living up to the expectations of important people and the application of labels, such as “good person.” There is an emphasis on fairness, loyalty, and trust in relationships. For instance, a teenager might be motivated to follow rules to be seen as a “good son” or “good friend.”
Stage 4: Maintaining the Social Order. This stage is concerned with obeying laws, respecting authority, and fulfilling one’s civic duty. The reasoning here is that laws and social order are necessary to prevent chaos. The moral reasoning is focused on the good of society as a whole, rather than the good of particular relationships.
Level 3: Post-conventional Morality
The highest level of moral reasoning, characterized by abstract principles and universal ethical ideas. Individuals at this stage understand that laws can be unjust and that there are higher moral principles that should guide actions.
Stage 5: Social Contract and Individual Rights. At this stage, people recognize that while laws are generally a good way to govern society, there are times when they may not be in the best interests of certain individuals. They believe that laws should be fair and that the majority should not be able to take away the fundamental rights of the minority. For example, a person might argue that a law is unjust and should be changed, even if it is currently legal.
Stage 6: Universal Principles. This is the most advanced stage of moral reasoning, where individuals develop their own set of moral guidelines. These principles are abstract and universal, such as justice, equality, and the sanctity of life. People at this stage are willing to act on these principles, even if they go against the law or societal norms. For instance, someone might engage in civil disobedience to protest a deeply unjust law, believing that a higher moral law supersedes it.
Gilligan’s Critique and the Ethics of Care
Gilligan’s seminal work, “In a Different Voice,” challenged Kohlberg’s findings by highlighting a potential gender bias in his research. She observed that women, when presented with the same moral dilemmas, often reasoned differently than men, focusing on relationships and care rather than abstract rights and justice.
She argued that Kohlberg’s stages, particularly the higher levels, were based on a male-centric view of morality, emphasizing individual rights, autonomy, and justice. This perspective, she contended, overlooked or devalued a distinct “ethic of care” that seemed more prevalent in women’s moral reasoning.
Gilligan proposed that moral development is not a single, linear progression but can manifest in different ways. Her “ethic of care” emphasizes interconnectedness, responsibility, empathy, and responsiveness to the needs of others.
The Voice of Care
Gilligan observed that women often framed moral problems in terms of maintaining relationships, avoiding harm, and responding to specific needs. This contrasted with the justice-oriented approach, which prioritizes impartiality and universal principles.
For example, in the Heinz dilemma, a woman might focus on the wife’s suffering and the husband’s responsibility to care for her, rather than solely on the abstract right to property versus the right to life. Her reasoning might revolve around the potential damage to the marriage and the emotional toll on all involved.
Gilligan did not see this as a sign of inferior moral development, but rather as a different, equally valid, way of understanding and responding to moral situations. She identified three levels within the ethic of care, which are not necessarily sequential stages but rather different modes of understanding responsibility.
Gilligan’s Levels of Care
Level 1: Pre-conventional: Survival of the Self. The primary concern is for oneself and one’s own survival. Decisions are made based on what is best for the individual, with little regard for others.
Level 2: Conventional: Self-Sacrifice and Care for Others. In this stage, there is a shift towards prioritizing the needs of others, often through self-sacrifice. Women might feel a strong obligation to care for others, sometimes to the detriment of their own well-being, to be seen as good or responsible.
Level 3: Post-conventional: The Integration of Care and Responsibility. This level involves a balance between caring for oneself and caring for others. It recognizes the interconnectedness of individuals and the importance of both self-preservation and responsiveness to the needs of others. This stage emphasizes nonviolence and the understanding that one’s actions have consequences for others.
Points of Convergence and Divergence
While often presented as a direct opposition, there are areas where Kohlberg and Gilligan’s theories can be seen as complementary rather than mutually exclusive. Both acknowledge the complexity of moral development and the importance of reasoning in moral decision-making.
However, the core divergence lies in their emphasis. Kohlberg’s model is primarily focused on justice, rights, and abstract principles, representing a more individualistic and rights-based approach. Gilligan’s ethic of care highlights relationality, responsibility, and context-specific understanding, representing a more community-oriented and responsibility-based approach.
A key difference is the perceived universality. Kohlberg believed his stages represented a universal progression applicable to all individuals. Gilligan, while not necessarily denying universality, suggested that the “voice” of care might be more pronounced in certain groups, particularly women, due to societal conditioning and different life experiences.
Practical Implications and Examples
Understanding these different theoretical perspectives has significant practical implications for education, psychology, and even legal systems. Recognizing diverse moral reasoning can lead to more inclusive and effective approaches.
In education, for instance, a teacher might encounter students who approach a classroom conflict differently. One student might focus on the rule that was broken and the consequence (Kohlberg’s justice focus), while another might focus on how the conflict hurt someone’s feelings and damaged friendships (Gilligan’s care focus).
Acknowledging both perspectives allows for a richer understanding of the situation and more effective conflict resolution strategies. Instead of just enforcing rules, educators can also foster empathy and relational skills.
Consider a business ethics scenario: A company discovers a minor flaw in its product that poses a very low risk of harm but would be costly to fix. A Kohlbergian approach might focus on the legal obligation and the potential for lawsuits (justice and rights). A Gilligan-inspired approach might consider the impact on customer trust, the company’s reputation for care, and the potential for even a small number of individuals to be affected (responsibility and relationships).
In healthcare, a doctor facing a difficult treatment decision for a patient might weigh the patient’s autonomy and right to refuse treatment (Kohlberg) against the patient’s relationships, their caregiver’s well-being, and the doctor’s own responsibility to provide care and prevent harm (Gilligan).
Reconciling the Theories
Many contemporary scholars argue that a comprehensive understanding of moral development requires integrating both the justice perspective and the ethic of care. These are not necessarily opposing forces but rather two important lenses through which to view moral reasoning.
The “clash” might be better understood as a “dialogue” or a “complementarity.” Both justice and care are essential components of a mature moral compass. Individuals may draw upon both frameworks depending on the situation and their personal development.
For example, a person might advocate for social justice reforms based on universal principles (Kohlberg) while simultaneously being deeply motivated by a desire to alleviate suffering and improve the lives of specific individuals and communities (Gilligan).
The goal is not to determine which theory is “right” but to appreciate the richness and complexity of human moral experience. Recognizing both the importance of fairness and the importance of connection allows for a more nuanced and complete picture of moral development.
Beyond the Dichotomy
The debate between Kohlberg and Gilligan has spurred further research into the nuances of moral development. Scholars continue to explore how cultural factors, individual experiences, and gender might influence moral reasoning.
Some research suggests that the distinction between justice and care reasoning may not be as strictly gendered as Gilligan initially proposed, with individuals of all genders employing both forms of reasoning. However, societal expectations and experiences can still influence which mode of reasoning is more readily accessed or valued.
Ultimately, both Kohlberg’s emphasis on justice and rights and Gilligan’s focus on care and responsibility offer invaluable insights into how we navigate the moral landscape. Acknowledging the validity of both perspectives enriches our understanding of human morality.
By appreciating the distinct contributions of both Kohlberg and Gilligan, we gain a more holistic and sophisticated understanding of the multifaceted nature of moral development. This integrated view is crucial for fostering ethical individuals and a more just and compassionate society.