Recent literature portrays caring as a psychological, social, and ethical orientation associated with female gender identity. This essay focuses on Giliigan's influential view that “care” is a broad theme of moral development which is under‐represented in dominant theories of human development such as Kohlberg's theory. An alternative hypothesis is proposed portraying care development as a set of circumscribed coping strategies tailored to dealingwith sexism. While these strategies are practically effective and partially “liberated,” from the moral point of view, they also reflect the debilitating influences of sexist socialization even at the highest level. Gilligan and her colleagues seem to misidentify these inadequacies of mature care. This alternative hypothesis is briefly related to the critical and feminist tradition. Then it is supported with Gilligan's own research and interpretive text.
Two proposals are made: (a) theories of development are developmental phenomena themselves and should be addressed developmentally, and (b) developmental theories are conceptual research programs that should proceed experimentally. The implications of these proposals are traced with respect to the care-justice, or Kohlberg-Gilligan, debate regarding moral judgment and gender role. Various ‘different voice’ counterhypotheses are posed for the purpose of comparison with Gilligan’s ‘different voice’ of caring and her critique of justice as the basis of moral judgment. Exploration of these counterhypotheses suggests how care’s voice and Kohlberg’s vision might be nurtured together.
Effective moral education must address roadblocks in moral thinking, not merely urging moral development forward. Seen in a certain way, Kohlberg's moral stages plot a course of immoral judgement, marked by bias and manipulation, not a steady march toward justice. The De ning Issues Test bodes an even more useful glimpse into the nefarious, focused on ideological content and commitment. These may prove the greatest obstacles to moral growth and accord. We consider these prospects along with the promise of converting alleged DIT de cits into assets. Four Prospects The Dark SideTo enhance moral development in the classroom, we must face squarely the obstacles in its path. By merely trying to stimulate forward progress, we fail to take the many struggles of development seriously. Among the impediments it must overcome are prejudice, stereotyping, authoritarianism and ego-defensiveness. Of unrecognised importance are also forms of cognitive "self-alienation"-the "natural" evolution of incompetent and partially immoral capacities within developing competence systems. (These include logics of deception and revenge.) Both types of impediments ensconce themselves in cognition as partisan beliefs and values organised as ideologies. In this form they impede developmental processes. Ideological ImpedimentsResearch using the Moral Judgement Interview (MJI) and the De ning Issues Test (DIT) holds untapped potential for revealing this dark side of morality. The rst, Kohlberg's measure (Colby & Kohlberg, 1987), provides evidence of severe distortions in developmental cognitive operations, such as assimilation. MJI data also can be reinterpreted to transform emerging of not-yet-adequate development into immoral development. In focusing as much on cognitive content and orientation as on moral reasoning, the DIT (Rest et al., 1999) reveals how committed moral viewpoints may distort apt deliberation and negotiation. (At least this is the main prospect I ask you to entertain.) Kohlberg identi ed the in uence of moral ideology
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.