Running head: CRITIQUE PAPER ONE

Critique Paper One: Gilligans Theory of Moral Development

Loyola University Chicago
Jonathan Merrill

CRITIQUE PAPER ONE

In response to Kohlbergs male-centered study of moral development, Carol Gilligan

developed an alternative theory of moral development by studying women considering abortion.
In contemporary society, both theories are used to frame the decision making process of students
in higher education. Although Gilligan's theory may initially seem limited in scope due to the
specific population she studied, her theory can be widely applied because the ethic of care is
central to the decision making and developmental process. The objective of this paper is to both
examine the applicability of Gilligan's theory by applying it to my past experiences and to
demonstrate its versatility in different contexts of higher education. In doing this, the benefits
and limitations of this theory are identified.
Care and responsibility are the central components of moral development in Gilligan's
theory (Evans, Forney, Guido, Patton & Renn, 2010). Care in this context can be understood as
"sustaining affective ties" (Gilligan, 1987) between oneself and others. Gilligan's theory

CRITIQUE PAPER ONE

consists of three levels with two transitions between them. Gilligan determined that the
orientation of care fluidly progressed from "an egocentric through a societal to the universal
moral perspective" (Gilligan, 1987, p. 69). In other words, care is first focused on the self then
shifts to the other. Finally, the individual forms a more universal understanding of care, in which
care for self is held at the same level as care for others. Similar to Kohlberg and other
developmental theories, individuals progress through development when they encounter
reasoning that requires faculties from a higher level or stage. Therefore, "exposure to conflict,
in both opinions and reasoning, leads to moral development" (Evans et al., 2010). In Gilligan's
theory this dissonance is internal, in the form of conflicting responsibilities between self and
others (Gilligan, 1987).
Gilligans Theory of Moral Development
Gilligan's Theory of Moral Development intersected with the development of my sexual
orientation. Although I came out as bisexual as a sophomore, it was not until my senior year that
I became comfortable acting on my feelings for men. The decision to tell a very close friend that
I had feelings for him was an incredibly difficult choice. Although a bit clich, this example
resonates across the different levels and transitions of Gilligan's theory.
Level 1: Orientation to Individual Survival
In her study of women considering abortion, Gilligan (1977) found that the most basic
construction of this moral choice was centered on the self. For these women the issue was
framed around their individual survival. The key aspect of this level is the inability to
distinguish between one's desires and necessity (Evans et al., 2010). For example, a woman at

CRITIQUE PAPER ONE

this level responded " 'I didn't want it, I wasn't ready for it, and next year will be my last year
and I want to go to school'" (Gilligan, 1977, p. 492). The womans focus in this response was on
her desires and care for herself. At this stage there is no moral decision to be made because of
the lack of distinction between desire and necessity. My initial response to having feelings for
my friend was to emotionally distance myself from him. In reflection, my reasoning for this was
self-focused. By communicating my feelings for him, I would be putting myself in a very
vulnerable position and I was simply afraid of getting hurt through rejection. At this level of
decision making, I did not consider the feelings of my friend in the act of distancing myself from
him.
Transition 1: From Selfishness to Responsibility
During this transition, individuals begin to identify their previous actions as selfish and
begin to focus on their responsibility to others. Central to this transition is attachment and
connection with others (Evans et al., 2010; Gilligan, 1977). Women in Gilligan's study began to
make a distinction between desire and necessity; according to Gilligan, "the 'selfishness' of
willful decision is counterposed [sic] to the 'responsibility' of moral choice" (Gilligan, 1977, p.
494). In my example, I realized that I could not just cut someone off - especially a close friend because of my own needs. I recognized that I had a responsibility to maintain a relationship with
my friend. My actions were incredibly selfish, prompting me to apologize to him. My decision
making process evolved from simply ending the relationship to staying in a more ambiguous
state. Another important aspect of this transition, as identified by Gilligan, is " enhancement
in self-worth, it requires a conception of self which includes the possibility for doing 'the right

CRITIQUE PAPER ONE

thing', the ability see in oneself the potential for social acceptance" (Gilligan, 1977, p. 495). In
my opinion, the right thing was maintaining the relationship even though I had feelings for him.
Level 2: Goodness as Self-Sacrifice
Gilligan (1977) described this level as " goodness [is] the overriding concern as
survival is now seen to depend on acceptance by others" (p. 496). Since the focus is on
maintaining relationships with others, dissonance is produced around the issue of hurting another
(Evans et al., 2010). The key to deciding between a conflict of interests, where someone's needs
will inevitably be sacrificed, is prioritizing others needs over one's own to maintain social
connection. One critique I had for this theory was that the transition between level one and level
two was too extreme and unrealistic. Individuals undergo a one hundred and eighty degree
change from being self-absorbed to being completely other focused. However, in my personal
example, I did perform this change. I switched my focus from how I would feel to the position
in which I would put my friend. I did not think it would be fair to put him in an uncomfortable
position. I think this extreme change was a manifestation of my overcompensation for
previously being selfish. Recognizing that my actions were selfish, especially at my age, caused
me to overcommit to the relationship and subsequently ignore my needs. Gilligan described the
potential negative backlash of this stage: " the public sacrifice in the name of responsibility
engendered a private resentment that erupted in anger, compromising the very relationship that it
had intended to sustain" (Gilligan, 1977, p. 497). The inevitable outburst that occurred between
me and my friend definitely damaged our relationship, but also helped to move me to transition
two.
Transition 2: From Goodness to Truth

CRITIQUE PAPER ONE

Gilligan (1977) found that women during this transition began " to ask whether it is
selfish or responsible, moral, or immoral, to include her own needs within the compass of her
care and concern" (p. 498). Specifically, the important aspect of this transition is reconciling the
dissonance between hurt and care (Gilligan, 1977). During this transition I struggled between
these two factors. I understood that selflessly committing myself to the relationship caused me
to unhealthy repression of my feelings. However, I also recognized that in addition to putting
myself in a vulnerable position by telling him, I would be putting my friend in an uncomfortable
position as well. Honesty is an important value and I was continually being dishonest with my
friend. Finally, I continually betrayed his trust and potentially hurt him emotionally every time I
lashed out or tried to cut him out of my life. Gilligan observed this struggle in the women she
studied: "she strives to encompass the needs of both self and others, to be responsible to others
and thus to be 'good' but also to be responsible to herself and thus be 'honest' and 'real'" (Gilligan,
1977, p. 500). The key to resolving this dissonance was developing an understanding that I had
an obligation to take care of myself in order to take care of others.
Level 3: The Morality of Nonviolence
In this final stage, Gilligan (1977) found that the women in her study " elevated
nonviolence - the injunction against hurting - to a principle governing all moral judgment and
action" (p. 504). By doing so, Gilligan theorized that the women were able to find moral
equality between self and other (Gilligan, 1977). To reach this stage, however, the women had to
first have a self-concept that placed her needs on the same level as her responsibilities with
others. In doing so, the dichotomy of selfishness and responsibility dissolved (Gilligan, 1977).
Individuals at this level realize that they are connected as the idea of care encompasses both self

CRITIQUE PAPER ONE

and others. Decisions are made understanding that to hurt one, hurts all - pushing them to adopt
the morality of nonviolence. The motivation to tell my friend was centered on understanding
that my silence had only served to hurt our relationship. Furthermore, although I acknowledged
that I may put him in an uncomfortable position, it was ultimately better to be honest and open so
that I would no longer intentionally hurt him.
In sum, Gilligan's theory of was very applicable to my decision to tell my friend that I
had feelings for him. Since I identify as a man, this suggests that there are some, if not all,
aspects to her theory that can be applied irrespective of gender. Ultimately, this is because her
theory is focused on care and the relationship between oneself and others. Oppression is another
important aspect that influenced my development along this theory. If my friend was a woman, I
believe that I would still have developed along this theory. However, since I displayed a
homosexual attraction within a heterosexual focused environment, I believe that my development
through her theory was delayed at certain levels. For example, resentment over neglecting my
needs as well as fear of his response caused me to regress to a level one response. The fear
caused me to repeat this cycle preventing me from reaching a higher level of decision making.
Application to Higher Education
Since the core of this theory is focused on one's ability to make a decision that affects
their relationship with another, it can be applied in a variety of different contexts within higher
education. College educators can apply this theory to any situation in which interpersonal
decision making is required. Students are challenged to consider how their choices will affect
themselves and others in at least two instances: in the decision to go abroad and in the decision
regarding what to do after college.

CRITIQUE PAPER ONE

This theory is applicable to professionals working in study abroad offices. In the decision
to study abroad, first and second year students must consider several different factors. Generally,
finances must be considered. For students whose family financially supports them, going abroad
may cause a significant burden. Additionally, students who go abroad will face a significant
distance from established support systems - friends and family. Using Gilligan's theory, college
educators can help students critically look at their choice to go abroad. A student currently on
level one may not fully understand how many factors are implicated in studying abroad. They
may simply say: "I want to go abroad, so I'm going abroad." An educator working with a student
at this level may question if this student is mature enough to go abroad. The student may
encounter different world views, but be unable to fully integrate them. Using this theory,
educators can frame the conversation around how going abroad may impact other individuals in
the students life. In comparison, a student in the first transition or second level may have
originally expressed interest, but subsequently changed their mind because going abroad may
burden their family. Regardless of whether the student decides to study abroad or not, educators
working with this student can challenge them to first truly acknowledge their desires and imagine
a situation where their desires were equal to their responsibilities with others.
As students near the completion of their higher education journey, upper-class and nontraditional students will again make interpersonal decisions. Educators working in Career
Centers can apply Gilligan's theory to help facilitate the conversation regarding what to do after
college. For example, a student may want to pursue a master's degree, but may also want to
pursue a salaried job in order to support their family. With the volume of choices to make and
responsibilities to consider, students in transition two may become paralyzed. The goal of
college educators should be to challenge this student to establish a conception of self that

CRITIQUE PAPER ONE

validates both their own needs and the needs of others. By resolving the apparent dichotomy
between selfishness and responsibility, the student will hopefully be able to move from a position
of paralysis.
Conclusion: Benefits and Limitations
In sum, Gilligan's Theory of Moral Development focuses on the factors of care and
responsibility in decision making. In comparison to Kohlberg's theory, " the moral problem is
seen to arise from conflicting responsibilities rather than from competing rights and to require for
its resolution a mode of thinking that is contextual and inductive rather than formal and abstract"
(Gilligan, 1987, p. 68). Viewing moral reasoning through the lens of care and responsibility
provides benefits and limitations. In general, our species make interpersonal decisions regularly.
This is especially true with strong familial ties. Students entering higher education may find the
freedom to make difficult decisions on their own for the first time. These decisions can range
from relationship problems, career choices, and many other every days occurrences. Therefore,
when college educators encounter students who are in the process of making decisions that
impact the relationship between oneself and others, they can apply Gilligan's theory.
Furthermore, Gilligan's theory is applicable to more than women. As stated previously,
interpersonal decision making transcends any one gender. However, there are limitations to this
theory. Since this theory is focused on factors that are internal to and existing between
individuals, it cannot be applied to factors existing external to the individual. For example,
Gilligan's theory may not be applicable to students who are fixated on punishment and rules.
Additionally, as examined earlier, various other types of identity development can facilitate or

10

CRITIQUE PAPER ONE

impede moral development. Although individuals may have progressed through different stages
previously, both internal and external factors can cause the individual to regress to earlier levels.

References
Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., Guido, F., Patton, L., & Renn, K. (2010). Student
development in college: Theory, research, and practice (2nd Edition). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.

CRITIQUE PAPER ONE

11

Gilligan, C. (1977). In a different voice: Women's conceptions of self and of morality. Harvard
educational review, 47(4), 481-517.
Gilligan, C. (1987). Womens place in mans life cycle. In S. Harding (Ed.), Feminism
and methodology (pp. 57-73). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.