Hi Tipsters!
Stephen Black wrote:
> I think it was Freud who first made the claim. Finding that his
> ridiculous theory of moral development didn't make sense for women
> (because it requires that the child fear that his penis will be cut
> off, leading to development of the superego, and girls might have a
> little difficulty in fearing _ that_), one might have expected him to
> abandon his theory. He didn't. Instead, he claimed that women have an
> inferior superego and therefore inferior moral sense [have a great
> quote from him on that, but unfortunately at school] and his
> outrageous theory was just fine, thank you.
Was Freud first or was the idea of women's inferior morality first conveyed
in Genesis? After all, some believe that Eve was totally responsible for
leading Adam down the garden path to sin. Of course, other interpretations
put a different spin on that whole apple (actually it doesn't translate as
apple) incident.
> I believe the idea was revived by Carol Gilligan, who gave it a
> feminist slant.
She was actually responding to Lawrence Kohlberg's theory of moral
development which is often described as "morality as justice"
> She argued that women and men have a different kind of
> morality.
They develop differently or "In a different voice" - the title of her
book. Based in part on the work of Nancy Chodorow and mothers
relationships to their children. As Chodorow is psychoanalytic, Gilligan's
theory does take on a psychoanalytic "feel" but can be interpreted from
other perspectives.
> For women, it was something she called a morality of caring,
Morality of care and responsibility
> for men, it was a morality of justice. As tests of moral standards
> were biased towards a morality of justice, it was no wonder that women
> scored lower on them. The only trouble was--they didn't.
There are more problems with the study and the research designs than just
that. Additionally, Kohlberg's theory falters in relation to men/boys as
well.
> I believe that Gilligan's theory has consequently been fully
> discredited [references at school, on request].
Of course, those of us with backgrounds in developmental psychology prefer
to say that it lacks empirical validity. Gee, if we left out the theories
that "lacked empirical validity" from our texts, it would be a mighty thin
text these days. For example, Erikson still lurks the pages but "lacks
empirical validity". It just sound so harsh to say he has been
discredited. Now, it is easy to say that Bruno Bettleheim has been
discredited as it has been demonstrated that he falsified his credentials
and data!
Of course, one of the major difficulties with the mysterious JHe's question
is the topic. Stephen and I have responded with three theories which use
the term moral development Not many use that term as a descriptor anymore
and it is being dropped from many developmental texts.
So, one should probably step back a bit and ask first - JHe, what do you
mean by the term "moral development"? Your definition could impact which
research is discussed and the answer to your question.
linda
--
linda m. woolf, ph.d.
associate professor - psychology
webster university
main webpage: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/
Holocaust and genocide studies pages:
http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/holocaust.html
womens' pages: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/women.html
gerontology pages: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/gero.html
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
