READ [In a Different Voice Psychological Theory and Women's Development]
Eve that I m actually responsible for a thing I also can t help but think that this connection also leads to ethics of care being taken less seriously or alternatively being taught in classes just so students will be able to be like ay we studied about women good to know they did something and professors will feel good about being progressive In conclusion I m a little confused as to why this book showed up in so many of my classes Like there s constantly a connection between Politics and Economics and this was the first time that there was a connection between philosophy and politics i have to admit Philosophy and Politics I have to admit I m disappointed I can t say that I actually recommend this book to anyone reading the Wikipedia article on Ethics *Of Care Will Probably Be Interesting And *Care will probably be interesting and information What I m Taking With Me Did ou guys know that the Trolley Problem was invented by a woman Although I wholeheartedly disagree with Gilligan s work this isn t going to stop me from citing her in my Political Science essay and claiming that countries are built in such a way that doesn t provide room for ethics of care and that that s a shame because maybe what we need isn t a conversation about euality but rather a conversation about making sure everyone has a seat at the table and figure out who doesn t and why Or in other words would Black Lives Matter exist had there been black politicians who felt their voices were being heard and acknowledged I m definitely all about people having the room to make their choices about their own bodies but in the same time this book made me pause and think about abortions I don t think I ve ever considered just what a terrible decision that is and how scarring that can be I will start off by noting that of course this book is dated and eminently critiue able in a number of ways it s binary essentialist complementarist heteronormative prescribes a normative view of psychological development that may do damage to any number of abnormal subjects blinded by whiteness inadeuately class conscious generally lacking in intersectionality rooted in standpoint epistemology etcBUT It is also profoundly generative and important and it strongly resonated with me It reminded me how much my supposedly enlightened post structuralist sympathies articulated in relation to primarily male theoretical greats may in some sense just be a new language for rediscribing what Gilligan contends women have already known There s so much here that speaks to me the idea of the self as embedded in and constituted by a web of social relationships with others the care of the self as mutually reinforcing and not necessarily conflicting with those of others intimacy and identity as inextricably linked the importance of context over abstraction in moral reasoning especially when this need for detail is driven by an expansive moral imagination morality as resolving conflicts in a way that ideally allows us to avoid hurting anyone the hypothetical moral dilemma as a kind of violence which causes anguish through its positing of conditions of inevitable conflict between moral imperatives while refusing the moral agent the opportunity to try to change the conditions of choice such that everyone can be aided or at least not hurt moral nihilism as the negation of the self resulting from the negation of social ties the self as delineated from others on the positive basis of connection rather than the negative basis of separation the self as the layering of increasingly intimate others with a dubiously existing and ambiguous core selffor all my dis identification with traditional femininity I feel this women s perspective on morality so strongly that I can t help but love this book on some level Very thought provoking and led to some of the better discussions I had in my first ear of college but I reject many of the premises Gilligan launches from namely that there s some essential nature to female psychology and male psychology or at least the type of highly specified nature she ends up positing I think human psychology is a much fractured and varied set of phenomena than this and that the landscape of large scale generalizations about gender traits though sometimes useful if done carefully and based on solid empirical findings is an area to tread very cautiously through Gilligan does not tread so cautiously Big big big methodological problems with her research She basically drew gigantic conclusions from extremely small samples of psychological uestionnaires She also never submitted her research and subseuent interpretations for pre publishing peer review which even back when this was written raises a bright red flag and goes against a very important standard of scientific protocol even for the so called soft science of psychology Peer review is one of the things that separates the rigor and integrity of science from the wild guessing games of other styles of inuiryThis book essentially trades some negative over generalizations about women for flattering ones and visa versa for males Much of it sounds really great at first but then Gambling for Dummies you leaveour thinking cap on a little longer and much of it unravels in our hands right before #Your Eyes An Important #eyes An important no doubt but I think it s incredibly dated and ultimately unhelpful as a piece of the gender euality puzzle It should also be said that I should read this again though I suspect it might result in an even negative review than this one My memory of the book on the whole is still a little fuzzy but I certainly recall enough of it to write this much. S view of female personality The result is truly a tour de force which may well reshape much of what psychology now has to say about female experienc.
Summary In a Different Voice Psychological Theory and Women's Development.
Dividualism and absolute justice while women develop along a path of connectivity the discrepancy arises in that our societal systems measure women by the same standards as men and everyone loses out women do not develop the skills to navigate between their internal value systems that emphasize relationships and collective success and their external value systems that emphasize absolute morality and individual success men do not develop the tools to integrate a rubric of care and concern into the value system of individual success what a mess I completely devoured this book I have studied about this book in three of my classes The context was different each time and the way it was explained was very different as well So I figured that this is a good book to read to get an insight into my classes ou might think this shows how dedicated I am but really this is an elaborate way to procrastinate In Political Science we went through feminism and brought this up as the difference between feminism that says women are exactly like men and feminism that says that women are different than men and deserve their own space In my PPE course we talked about this as a contrasting opinion to Rawl s theory of justice And in Ethics we studied about this as a side note for virtue ethics So my expectations for this book were very high as it felt like it was important Gilligan s main claim is the idea that women hold a different perspective of ethics Men talk about ethics as an objective thing that should treat everyone the same Euality and fairness matter to men when talking about ethics Women however apparently see ethics as contextual We all have a dependency to those around us which leads to a responsibility Women ask is anyone hurt by this according to Gilligan Ultimately ethical choices are influenced by human connections and this can t be ignored When we studied about this in Politics I thought it was awesome It s such a great idea to create policy based on making sure that everyone feels like they are part of the game I genuinely do feel like if we were to care about those around us we d be able to do so much in our politics Like taking it to Israeli politics clearly the Arab parties are left out and we ve got to let them into the political game in order to improve somethingOur lecturer talked a lot about how women change this ethical perspective as they grow That is as a woman reaches adulthood she conforms to the masculine view of ethical judgement This is also spoken about in the book itself in Gilligan s abortion study which describes how women grow up being told to care for others and ultimately feel stuck between the lessons of femininity and the lessons of adulthood He was really careful about clarifying that it doesn t mean that all women think inherently different than all men
However the exact same idea annoyed me greatly when we talked aboutthe exact same idea annoyed me greatly when we talked about Ethics I entirely disagreed After class a few friends and were all annoyed and interestingly enough from entirely different reasons It s probably worth noting that all of my philosophy friends from class are guys They seemed to think that ethics of care are close to preferring women over men that feminism has gone overboard We ended up staying an hour after class arguing about it The conclusion was that I m a radical feminist apparently and that Law students have an inferiority complexI was annoyed by our lecturer making sexist jokes when teaching about this I felt like he was emphasizing that women see ethics differently when I can t help but feel that the important part of this theory is that we have been ignoring the influence of contexts when discussing ethics I don t think the biggest idea Gilligan has is that women inherently are different I think the biggest idea here is that fairness doesn t necessarily mean ethicalI generally feel like this book doesn t uite manage to hold up methodologically if we try to claim that it s this huge generalization about gender I mean Gilligan bases herself on 3 studies which are all interviews with around 20 participants That s hardly valid Now if she wishes to claim that there s a different way of looking at ethics that works but come on BUG DEATH you can hardly say that s valid about all women with that tiny amount of empirical research I realize this is a psychology book and not a philosophy book but this idea holds up in 2020 only if we ignore the weak empirical evidence Gilligan brings and focus on the ethical implications of ethics In many ways this reminded me of that uote about how Chinese philosophy doesn t focus on problems like the Trolley Problem because it s unrealistic and can t giveou anything useful for real life problems You can definitely say that ethics of care also wouldn t be invested in such uestions because Forests Hope (Timber Valley Wolf Pack yes there is a difference if the people on the train tracks wereour family or not When talking about work I usually say something like I help out and the other day my manager was like Roni Keeping and Breeding Australian Pythons you don t help outou re literally managing this I m sure Gilligan would suggest that growing up as a woman has led to me feeling like I can t be controlling However before I became a manager I volunteered and maybe the reason why I don t say I m a manager has to do with that Or maybe it s an understanding that as a manager if this goes terribly wrong I m responsible this is a fun understanding that occasionally keeps me up at night My point here is that everything is so multilayered and I don t understand the benefit of connecting this to gender And that shit can Hester Roon you beli. Heir psychological growth and their special view of what is important in life Here she sets out to correct psychology's misperceptions and refocus it. Super interesting probably a bit outdated and maybe even overturned It was very academic but such an important analysis The overall premise was interesting and as a woman and a professional who relies on psychological developmental theories to inform my work I appreciate the acknowledgment that women have been largely omitted from these theories I really liked how Gilligan reconciled the two perspectives as interconnected and necessary to reach mature development However I was disappointed that the area of how these differences came to be was not even referred to or hinted at through a lot of the repetitiveness of the differences she found in her research particularly when dealing with identifying differences of a group of people who have been and continue to be marginalized and the potential of negating the validity of the feminine perspective as she labels it I am inclined to agree with many of the other reviewers in that Gilligan s findings are liberating but a bit shakey because of the small sample she uses to perform her research and for the gravity of the issues she researched such as abortion While I will cite her work in my own thesis because my professor likes her I m not sure that I agree with everything she says Being written than 25ears ago I think that I am living my life understanding the truths that Gilligan wrote about while I was still in high school And thankfully only on very rare occasions have I every come across gender bias and I m now in my mid fourties This is a uick read and it tends to be repetitive and a reader could get the crux of the issue by reading the last chapter This is one of those books that I want to like but just can t I m with her on the idea that we need to include women s perspectives in analyses of developmental psychology rather than just relying on men s experiencesperceptionslanguage etc But she veers soooo close to essentialism in her extended discussions of women s language and emphases on attachment etc I was on board with her argument that maturity should include incorporation of both rights and care positions where men became aware of the value of attachment and women learned to include themselves in the ethics of care ie be able to attend to themselves as well as to others BUT have read Arlie Hochschild and from a different point of view Jeanne Boydston s Home and Work and having thought about emotional labor I see a big gaping hole there women continue to be responsible a word used over and over and over again for care and for maintaining relationships In the mature configuration they ve learned to consider themselves and to practice self care as well as care for others but the impression I m left with is that all the labor involved in care still falls to the woman The woman cares and others are cared for does the woman ever receive care *From Anyone Other Than Herself Not Considering *anyone other than herself Not considering actionslabor involved in care seems to keep women in the position of always being responsible for emotional labor Additionally I was bothered by the move Gilligan kept making from women focus on attachments to a definition of interdependence that strikes me as problematic and frankly naive the move from a focus on attachments to a belief that all humans are interconnected and we must love everyone She does acknowledge that the injunction to never hurt anyone leads to paralysis But the blanket love everyone model also seems paralyzing and also erases the reality of preferences by model also seems paralyzing and also erases the reality of preferences by all kinds of love into one giant love of all humanity I kept thinking of Gavin de Becker s Gift of Fear with its emphasis on how women are socialized into not being allowed to have preferences or to set limits and how that socialization can make women vulnerable to manipulation I m all for attachments being good but I think much depends on other factors besides just the fact of attachment who are A Wayside Tavern you attaching to Canou say no when attachment doesn t feel right or is attachment in the abstract important than attachment to specific people I do think that this was an important book in the early 1980s and I also think that Gilligan s work has evolved since then in ways I ve found interesting and useful I bought this book after hearing Gilligan speak on the relational paradox a term important to my own research in 1991 I remember arguing about this book several For Fear of Little Men years later with a philosopher friend a woman who found it maddeningly essentialist and it s interesting to find that I now agree This is a must for all women and men as it gives a very clear insight in how much we misunderstand ourselves being so trained to use male measurements and fit into a male world Every page was a revelation to me often painful and shocking in its obvious simplicity about how stunted our understanding of ourselves is how much we mirror ourselves to a male world how much we cover up who we really are try to cope and haven t really taken charge of our own developmentet It leaves big uestions with me as to where to go next as women which of course is Going To Be Our Big to be our big for the 21st Century given that we now have the freedom to explore these uestions i am hitting the jackpot on timely reading lately this ties in to a lot of things i ve been thinking about and illuminates some interesting patterns gilligan s central point and be aware this book is about thirty ears old and we re talking in broad generalizations that do not apply to everyone is that the societal paths of development for men and women differ in that men develop along a path measured by in. Carol Gilligan believes that psychology has persistently and systematically misunderstood women their motives their moral commitments the course of