What do you think?
Rate this book
In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development
This book started a revolution. Published decades ago, it made women's voices heard, in their own right, with their own integrity, for virtually the 1st time in social scientific theorizing about women. Its impact was immediate & continues in the academic world & beyond. Translated into 16 languages, with over 750,000 copies sold. In a Different Voice has inspired new research, new educational initiatives & political debate--& helped many women & men to see themselves & each other in a different light. Gilligan believes that psychology has persistently & systematically misunderstood women: their motives, their moral commitments, the course of their psychological growth & their special view of what is important in life. Here she sets out to correct psychology's misperceptions & refocus its view of female personality. The result is a tour de force, which may reshape much of what psychology now has to say about female experience.
192 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1982
239 people are currently reading
7068 people want to read
About the author
Carol Gilligan
56 books201 followersCarol Gilligan is an American feminist, ethicist, and psychologist best known for her work on ethical community and ethical relationships.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 160 reviews
January 27, 2010
Very thought-provoking and led to some of the better discussions I had in my first year 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 more 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 questionnaires. She also never submitted her research and subsequent 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 inquiry.
This 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 you leave your thinking cap on a little longer and much of it unravels in your hands, right before your eyes. An important work, no doubt, but I think it's incredibly dated and ultimately unhelpful as a piece of the gender equality puzzle.
(It should also be said that I should read this again, though I suspect it might result in an even more 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.)
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 questionnaires. She also never submitted her research and subsequent 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 inquiry.
This 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 you leave your thinking cap on a little longer and much of it unravels in your hands, right before your eyes. An important work, no doubt, but I think it's incredibly dated and ultimately unhelpful as a piece of the gender equality puzzle.
(It should also be said that I should read this again, though I suspect it might result in an even more 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.)
August 26, 2016
I will start off by noting that of course this book is dated and eminently critique-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, inadequately class-conscious, generally lacking in intersectionality, rooted in standpoint epistemology, etc....
BUT. 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 self...for 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.
BUT. 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 self...for 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.
February 12, 2020
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 (you 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. Equality 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 more about those around us, we'd be able to do so much more 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 something.
Our 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 about it in Ethics. I entirely disagreed. After class, a few friends and I 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 complex.
I 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 ethical.
I generally feel like this book doesn't quite 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, 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 quote about how Chinese philosophy doesn't focus on problems like the Trolley Problem because it's unrealistic and can't give you anything useful for real life problems. You can definitely say that ethics of care also wouldn't be invested in such questions because yes, there is a difference if the people on the train tracks were your family or not.
When talking about work, I usually say something like, "I help out" and the other day, my manager was like, "Roni, you don't help out, you'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 you believe 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, "yay, 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 that 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 more interesting and provide more information.
What I'm Taking With Me
-Did you 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 equality 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 more 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.
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. Equality 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 more about those around us, we'd be able to do so much more 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 something.
Our 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 about it in Ethics. I entirely disagreed. After class, a few friends and I 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 complex.
I 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 ethical.
I generally feel like this book doesn't quite 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, 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 quote about how Chinese philosophy doesn't focus on problems like the Trolley Problem because it's unrealistic and can't give you anything useful for real life problems. You can definitely say that ethics of care also wouldn't be invested in such questions because yes, there is a difference if the people on the train tracks were your family or not.
When talking about work, I usually say something like, "I help out" and the other day, my manager was like, "Roni, you don't help out, you'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 you believe 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, "yay, 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 that 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 more interesting and provide more information.
What I'm Taking With Me
-Did you 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 equality 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 more 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.
October 21, 2009
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 development yet. It leaves big questions with me as to where to go next as women... which of course is going to be our big task for the 21st Century, given that we now have the freedom to explore these questions.
June 10, 2020
I completely devoured this book!
April 11, 2024
Ethics of care son zamanlarda karsilastigim en icgorulu soyutlamalardan biri, tavsiye ederim
January 1, 2023
Un ouvrage intéressant pour ouvrir un questionnement sur l’éthique du care à travers une étude pluridimensionnelle et notamment empirique qui permet de cerner le raisonnement méthodique et humaniste sur la construction de la morale.
A lire avec un regard critique car les points de vues et interprétations sont assez tranchés et ont pu questionner voire entrer en contradiction avec la vision de l’homme et de la femme et du rapport au monde.
A lire avec un regard critique car les points de vues et interprétations sont assez tranchés et ont pu questionner voire entrer en contradiction avec la vision de l’homme et de la femme et du rapport au monde.
Read
February 8, 2015This 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 experiences/perceptions/language etc. But she veers soooo close to essentialism in her extended discussions of women's language and emphases on attachment, etc. I was more on board with her argument that "maturity" should include incorporation of both "rights" and "care" positions, where men became more aware of the value of attachment and women learned to include themselves in the ethics of care (i.e. 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 the actions/labor 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 conflating 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 you attaching to? Can you say no when attachment doesn't feel right, or is attachment in the abstract more 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 years later with a philosopher friend (a woman) who found it maddeningly essentialist, and it's interesting to find that I now agree.
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 conflating 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 you attaching to? Can you say no when attachment doesn't feel right, or is attachment in the abstract more 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 years later with a philosopher friend (a woman) who found it maddeningly essentialist, and it's interesting to find that I now agree.
February 6, 2009
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 years 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 individualism 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!
October 26, 2020
Everyone should read this book on ethics of care. Especially now in Poland and other countries which struggle with an abortion ban.
March 10, 2022
Carol Gilligan prezentuje pracę z pogranicza psychologii rozwojowej i etyki. Kwestionuje długotrwałą tradycję obecną w zachodniej filozofii i psychologii polegającą na opisywaniu kobiet jako istot moralnie upośledzonych lub niedojrzałych, niezdolnych dokonywać trudnych wyborów moralnych (Kant), odstających od (męskiej) normy rozwoju moralnego, zdefiniowanego w ramach psychologii. Gilligan na podstawie własnych badań proponuje alternatywny model rozwoju moralnego, oparty na etyce troski i sieci relacji, a więc model przystający do rzeczywistej moralności przejawianej przez kobiety, których decyzje nie mieszczą się w układzie abstrakcyjnych praw i zasad etycznych, przez co uznawane są za niemoralne. Badaczko udowadnia, że tym, co kieruje kobietami nie jest amoralność, ale alternatywny system moralny, który dotąd nie został zbadany ani opisany w ramach etyki. Tworzy więc propozycje etyki troski i odpowiedzialności, która nie oznacza relatywizmu moralnego, a kontekstualność w miejsce zasad i praw, tworzy etykę wyjątków.
Już ta propozycja byłaby bardzo ciekawa, ale Gilligan idzie dalej, podejmując jeden z trudniejszych tematów w zakresie etyki, jakim jest aborcja* i przedstawia stanowiska kobiet, którą rozważają poddanie się zabiegowi, sposób w jaki formułują swoje dylematy moralne z nim związane i to, jak je rozwiązują. Zrywa więc z mitami zarówno podłych suk, które robią sobie skrobanki w przerwie na lunch pomiędzy podróżami do Paryża i Tokio**, jak i z obrazem straumatyzowanej „zabójstwem dziecka” kobiety (chociaż to ostatnie byłoby usprawiedliwione, biorąc pod uwagę, jak wiele z badanych przez nią kobiet zaczęło rozważać aborcję, ponieważ ich partnerzy postawili ultimatum: albo dziecko albo związek). Czytanie o tym, co kierowało kobietami decydującymi się na aborcję było prawdziwym doświadczeniem i jestem wdzięczna badaczce za przytoczenie ich wypowiedzi w całości. Wydaje mi się, że za mało jest w dyskursie na temat aborcji właśnie etycznych stanowisk kobiet, jakby antyaborcjoniści zmonopolizowali ten aspekt całkowicie, jakby tylko ich stanowisko było moralne. Zgodnie z modelem Gilligan również przeprowadzenie aborcji w określonych warunkach (innych niż gwałt i groźba śmierci kobiety!) jest rozwiązaniem etycznie akceptowalnym.
Już w tym momencie publikacja staje się rewolucyjna, ale badaczka idzie jeszcze dalej, wskazując na potencjalną autodestruktywność etyki troski, która prowadzi do samo poświęcenia kobiet, gloryfikowanego w kulturze zachodniej jako najwspanialsza kobieca cnota, czy też nawet jedyna wartość kobiety: wyrzeczenie się siebie, aby służyć innym (bogu, mężczyznom). W jej modelu więc aspekt troski obejmuje zarówno podmiot, który go praktykuje (kobietę), jak i innych, ponieważ jest to relacja wzajemna, co oznacza, że nie można troszczyć się prawdziwie o innych, jeśli nie troszczy się dokładnie tak samo o siebie, ponieważ jest się odpowiedzialnym wobec siebie tak samo jak wobec innych i nie ma nic szlachetnego w niszczeniu siebie, aby zrobić więcej miejsca dla innych, albowiem taka relacja jest właśnie niemoralna. Kluczowe dla Galligan jest znalezienie tego momentu w sieci relacji, gdzie „ja” krzyżuje się z innym i wywarzyć ten punkt tak, aby był optymalnie (ale nie idealnie, bo niemożliwe) zbalansowany. I na tym polega jej zdaniem dojrzałość moralna. I nie ma co ukrywać, postawienie w ten sposób kwestii kobiecej moralności – stwierdzenie, że ROZWÓJ JEST WIĘKSZYM OBOWIĄZKIEM NIŻ POŚWIĘCENIE – jest rewolucyjne.
Jedyne z czym miałam problem podczas czytania książki to fakt, że konstruktywistka społeczna we mnie warczała za każdym razem, gdy widziała przymiotnik „kobiecy”, czyli często. Ponieważ, chociaż nigdzie nie pada sformułowanie „z natury”, przy którym mam odruch wymiotny, jest to pisane w esencjonalistycznym tonie, chociaż od razu widać, że różnice w formułowaniu dylematów etycznych kobiet i mężczyzn, a nawet dziewczynek i chłopców, stanowią konsekwencje odmiennej socjalizacji płci. To książka psychologiczna, mogę więc uznać, że dalsze badania tego wątku, w zakresie społeczno-kulturowym skupiłyby się właśnie na tych aspektach, analizując kwestie systemowej komplementarności obu modeli, proces ich powstawania itp. Tym niemniej, jestem bardzo szczęśliwa, że ją przeczytałam, będę gorąco polecać każdemu i już zamówiłam w bibliotece drugą wydaną w Polsce publikację Gilligan Psychologia i opór.
* Dla jasności: nie uważam aborcji za kwestię etyczną, ponieważ została przedefiniowana w kategoriach etycznych bardzo niedawno temu i w określonym celu, jakim jest kontrolowanie kobiecej seksualności i rozrodczości przez każdego tylko nie kobiety. Praktycznie do początku XX wieku aborcja była konceptualizowana jako problem społeczny ze względu na swoje demograficzne konsekwencje (kobiety nie mają prawa pozbawiać narodu potencjalnych obywateli, z których można zrobić podatników i przyszłych martwych żołnierzy/nie mają prawa gospodarować własną mężczyzny, którą stanowią dzieci/ nie mają prawa do kontrolowania własnej rozrodczości bo to grzech przeciwko bogu/naturze), dopiero potem pojawił się ten cały mit macierzyństwa i kwestie etyczne zaczęły stanowić sedno dyskusji o aborcji, co okazało się silniejszym straszakiem niż odwoływanie się do uczuć patriotycznych i praw mężów.
** Tak, odwołuję się do tej popierdolonej kampanii, ponieważ jedyne, co można z niej zrobić dobrego to durne memy.
Już ta propozycja byłaby bardzo ciekawa, ale Gilligan idzie dalej, podejmując jeden z trudniejszych tematów w zakresie etyki, jakim jest aborcja* i przedstawia stanowiska kobiet, którą rozważają poddanie się zabiegowi, sposób w jaki formułują swoje dylematy moralne z nim związane i to, jak je rozwiązują. Zrywa więc z mitami zarówno podłych suk, które robią sobie skrobanki w przerwie na lunch pomiędzy podróżami do Paryża i Tokio**, jak i z obrazem straumatyzowanej „zabójstwem dziecka” kobiety (chociaż to ostatnie byłoby usprawiedliwione, biorąc pod uwagę, jak wiele z badanych przez nią kobiet zaczęło rozważać aborcję, ponieważ ich partnerzy postawili ultimatum: albo dziecko albo związek). Czytanie o tym, co kierowało kobietami decydującymi się na aborcję było prawdziwym doświadczeniem i jestem wdzięczna badaczce za przytoczenie ich wypowiedzi w całości. Wydaje mi się, że za mało jest w dyskursie na temat aborcji właśnie etycznych stanowisk kobiet, jakby antyaborcjoniści zmonopolizowali ten aspekt całkowicie, jakby tylko ich stanowisko było moralne. Zgodnie z modelem Gilligan również przeprowadzenie aborcji w określonych warunkach (innych niż gwałt i groźba śmierci kobiety!) jest rozwiązaniem etycznie akceptowalnym.
Już w tym momencie publikacja staje się rewolucyjna, ale badaczka idzie jeszcze dalej, wskazując na potencjalną autodestruktywność etyki troski, która prowadzi do samo poświęcenia kobiet, gloryfikowanego w kulturze zachodniej jako najwspanialsza kobieca cnota, czy też nawet jedyna wartość kobiety: wyrzeczenie się siebie, aby służyć innym (bogu, mężczyznom). W jej modelu więc aspekt troski obejmuje zarówno podmiot, który go praktykuje (kobietę), jak i innych, ponieważ jest to relacja wzajemna, co oznacza, że nie można troszczyć się prawdziwie o innych, jeśli nie troszczy się dokładnie tak samo o siebie, ponieważ jest się odpowiedzialnym wobec siebie tak samo jak wobec innych i nie ma nic szlachetnego w niszczeniu siebie, aby zrobić więcej miejsca dla innych, albowiem taka relacja jest właśnie niemoralna. Kluczowe dla Galligan jest znalezienie tego momentu w sieci relacji, gdzie „ja” krzyżuje się z innym i wywarzyć ten punkt tak, aby był optymalnie (ale nie idealnie, bo niemożliwe) zbalansowany. I na tym polega jej zdaniem dojrzałość moralna. I nie ma co ukrywać, postawienie w ten sposób kwestii kobiecej moralności – stwierdzenie, że ROZWÓJ JEST WIĘKSZYM OBOWIĄZKIEM NIŻ POŚWIĘCENIE – jest rewolucyjne.
Jedyne z czym miałam problem podczas czytania książki to fakt, że konstruktywistka społeczna we mnie warczała za każdym razem, gdy widziała przymiotnik „kobiecy”, czyli często. Ponieważ, chociaż nigdzie nie pada sformułowanie „z natury”, przy którym mam odruch wymiotny, jest to pisane w esencjonalistycznym tonie, chociaż od razu widać, że różnice w formułowaniu dylematów etycznych kobiet i mężczyzn, a nawet dziewczynek i chłopców, stanowią konsekwencje odmiennej socjalizacji płci. To książka psychologiczna, mogę więc uznać, że dalsze badania tego wątku, w zakresie społeczno-kulturowym skupiłyby się właśnie na tych aspektach, analizując kwestie systemowej komplementarności obu modeli, proces ich powstawania itp. Tym niemniej, jestem bardzo szczęśliwa, że ją przeczytałam, będę gorąco polecać każdemu i już zamówiłam w bibliotece drugą wydaną w Polsce publikację Gilligan Psychologia i opór.
* Dla jasności: nie uważam aborcji za kwestię etyczną, ponieważ została przedefiniowana w kategoriach etycznych bardzo niedawno temu i w określonym celu, jakim jest kontrolowanie kobiecej seksualności i rozrodczości przez każdego tylko nie kobiety. Praktycznie do początku XX wieku aborcja była konceptualizowana jako problem społeczny ze względu na swoje demograficzne konsekwencje (kobiety nie mają prawa pozbawiać narodu potencjalnych obywateli, z których można zrobić podatników i przyszłych martwych żołnierzy/nie mają prawa gospodarować własną mężczyzny, którą stanowią dzieci/ nie mają prawa do kontrolowania własnej rozrodczości bo to grzech przeciwko bogu/naturze), dopiero potem pojawił się ten cały mit macierzyństwa i kwestie etyczne zaczęły stanowić sedno dyskusji o aborcji, co okazało się silniejszym straszakiem niż odwoływanie się do uczuć patriotycznych i praw mężów.
** Tak, odwołuję się do tej popierdolonej kampanii, ponieważ jedyne, co można z niej zrobić dobrego to durne memy.
January 23, 2025
really enjoyed this one! novel and innovative thinking and strides towards understanding gender differences, though would have loved an expansion thats more intersectional, and discussion of gender identity vs socialization on the basis of sex
October 15, 2024
outdated, yes, and more case-study based than hard scientific data, but who am i to complain? my psych- studying self was happy to know at least some of the references
June 10, 2011
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 more than 25 years 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 quick read and it tends to be repetitive and a reader could get the crux of the issue by reading the last chapter.
Being written more than 25 years 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 quick read and it tends to be repetitive and a reader could get the crux of the issue by reading the last chapter.
February 5, 2014
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.
January 9, 2025
Carol Gilligan’s In a Different Voice is not just a book—it is a seismic shift in the understanding of human development and the moral fabric of relationships. It is a courageous challenge to the established norms of psychology, a discipline long shaped by male-dominated theories. With eloquence and insight, Gilligan introduces us to an ethic of care, weaving a narrative that places women’s voices at the center of moral inquiry. This work does not merely present a new framework for understanding moral development—it reclaims the silenced perspectives of half the human population.
Gilligan’s groundbreaking assertion that women’s moral reasoning often emphasizes care, connection, and relationships counters decades of psychological theory rooted in the “justice-oriented” frameworks of thinkers like Lawrence Kohlberg. She does not claim that women’s perspectives are better or more evolved but argues that their voices have been overlooked, distorting the broader understanding of morality and human experience. Her deep respect for women’s lived realities makes this book both revolutionary and profoundly humane.
Gilligan’s work has had a transformative impact on psychology and feminism. Her research illuminated how women navigate moral dilemmas, centering relational thinking rather than abstract principles. This insight has rippled across psychology, influencing research in developmental psychology, counseling, and education. By validating women’s ways of knowing, Gilligan opened the door for feminist psychology to critique the gender biases inherent in traditional theories.
Her influence extends far beyond academia. For feminists, In a Different Voice is more than a book; it is a manifesto for inclusion. It dismantles the assumption that male perspectives are universal and legitimizes the distinct and equally valuable contributions of women. Gilligan empowers women to see their relational focus not as a weakness but as a vital component of human growth and flourishing.
A Timeless Work for a New Generation: Reading In a Different Voice today feels as urgent as ever. As debates about gender equality, power, and societal expectations rage on, Gilligan’s insights offer a path toward greater understanding and compassion. Her work calls for a reevaluation of the systems that shape us—whether in families, schools, or institutions—and asks us to consider how care and connection can guide moral and social transformation.
Gilligan’s groundbreaking assertion that women’s moral reasoning often emphasizes care, connection, and relationships counters decades of psychological theory rooted in the “justice-oriented” frameworks of thinkers like Lawrence Kohlberg. She does not claim that women’s perspectives are better or more evolved but argues that their voices have been overlooked, distorting the broader understanding of morality and human experience. Her deep respect for women’s lived realities makes this book both revolutionary and profoundly humane.
Gilligan’s work has had a transformative impact on psychology and feminism. Her research illuminated how women navigate moral dilemmas, centering relational thinking rather than abstract principles. This insight has rippled across psychology, influencing research in developmental psychology, counseling, and education. By validating women’s ways of knowing, Gilligan opened the door for feminist psychology to critique the gender biases inherent in traditional theories.
Her influence extends far beyond academia. For feminists, In a Different Voice is more than a book; it is a manifesto for inclusion. It dismantles the assumption that male perspectives are universal and legitimizes the distinct and equally valuable contributions of women. Gilligan empowers women to see their relational focus not as a weakness but as a vital component of human growth and flourishing.
A Timeless Work for a New Generation: Reading In a Different Voice today feels as urgent as ever. As debates about gender equality, power, and societal expectations rage on, Gilligan’s insights offer a path toward greater understanding and compassion. Her work calls for a reevaluation of the systems that shape us—whether in families, schools, or institutions—and asks us to consider how care and connection can guide moral and social transformation.
July 16, 2025
Jill recommended this to me, and I didn't know what to expect. In the end, I'd say I enjoyed most of it. This is essentially an analysis of a compilation of interviews with questions along the lines of "what is morality?", "In [this particular dilemma], what should a person do?" The findings are shocking at times in their consistency from person to person. In the sample of people described, there are clear distinctions between the way the women and men tended to think and reason. I wonder how Gilligan addresses gender in her later research (does she still insist on a binary, or more of a spectrum?).
If there is a lull in my conversations moving forward, I will continue the research and ask these revealing questions:
"Heinz's wife needs life-saving medication that they can't afford, but the druggist will not lower the price. Should Heinz steal the medication?"
"How would you describe yourself?"
If there is a lull in my conversations moving forward, I will continue the research and ask these revealing questions:
"Heinz's wife needs life-saving medication that they can't afford, but the druggist will not lower the price. Should Heinz steal the medication?"
"How would you describe yourself?"
January 31, 2025
Acho sim que ela essencializa papéis de gênero e fala do cuidado de um jeito meio empoderamento colonizado. Também confesso que fiquei muito empolgada no começo e depois fui arrastando, porque foi ficando chato e repetitivo. No grupo reclamaram bastante. Mas tenho que ser justa e dizer que me fez pensar muito. Fiquei com vontade de falar desse livro em pelo menos três ocasiões nos últimos três dias, e tenho associado com muitas coisas. Ela traz pontos interessantes e profundos que me fizeram pensar sobre a moral, e entendo como esse livro foi revolucionário na época.
Read
May 28, 2025מטורף שגיליגן מצליחה להעביר במילים תחושות ודעות עמומות שהיו תמיד כמעט לכל אישה שאני מכירה. מהספרים שאיתי כבר חודשים. לא חושבת שהספר באמת מהותני כמו שאומרים עליו, לפחות לא יותר מכל שיחה שהיא לא נאיבית לגמרי על מגדר
October 18, 2018
Super interesting--probably a bit outdated and maybe even overturned? It was very academic, but such an important analysis.
September 8, 2024
mam kilka problemów z tą książką, ale jako że nie chce mi się o nich pisać to powiem tylko że była git
October 27, 2023
Undoubtedly an important book in its time. I found it illuminating in parts, but I would need to read it again, with much more reflection, to fully understand all the points.
March 8, 2014
This book helped change the way I think about ethics and cultural backgrounds and even how one goes about research. Gilligan's book is not and should not be considered in any way supportive of an essentialist argument about what a man's man is and what the fairer sex is. While there are definitive biological and physiological differences, gender differences, those culturally based judgments are rooted not in nature but in fact they come about through nurturing; what we are taught to expect of ourselves and others. Now Gilligan's critique, although presented for women, in principle applies to any culturally defined groups and the assumptions we make about them, us and our relations.
In terms of scientific research, conclusions are often discovered because they were, perhaps unknowingly, expected from the start and the universalizing of such conclusions is suspect at best. This book, taking issue with Lawrence Kohlberg's research into the psychological development of ethics in the individual which culminates in a what he believed was a universal ethic of justice, shows how this supposedly universal ethic is in fact an artifact of a particular culture, in this case a very narrowly defined segment of American culture in the 20th century, namely straight, white, male youths from the upper-middle class socio-economic level.
Her work here shows that there is potentially a fundamental moral developmental track that isn't so based in cultural biases and nurturing, i.e. what we teach our boys to be, but is discovered in the development of girls who, being girls and coming from middle and lower socio-economic levels of society, were largely ignored and developed then in a kind of absence of expectations. This track Gilligan discovered she calls the ethics of Care.
I highly recommend this book for anyone doing any sort of research and in particular as an introduction to the pitfalls of not being aware of one's own and one's cultural expectations and presuppositions.
In terms of scientific research, conclusions are often discovered because they were, perhaps unknowingly, expected from the start and the universalizing of such conclusions is suspect at best. This book, taking issue with Lawrence Kohlberg's research into the psychological development of ethics in the individual which culminates in a what he believed was a universal ethic of justice, shows how this supposedly universal ethic is in fact an artifact of a particular culture, in this case a very narrowly defined segment of American culture in the 20th century, namely straight, white, male youths from the upper-middle class socio-economic level.
Her work here shows that there is potentially a fundamental moral developmental track that isn't so based in cultural biases and nurturing, i.e. what we teach our boys to be, but is discovered in the development of girls who, being girls and coming from middle and lower socio-economic levels of society, were largely ignored and developed then in a kind of absence of expectations. This track Gilligan discovered she calls the ethics of Care.
I highly recommend this book for anyone doing any sort of research and in particular as an introduction to the pitfalls of not being aware of one's own and one's cultural expectations and presuppositions.
February 6, 2010
After reading Carol Gilligan's novel, Kyra, and loving her female characters, I figured it was finally time to take this book off my shelf and actually read it. I had cited it in several college and graduate school papers, but had never taken the time to read the whole thing. As so often happens, it was the perfect book to read at this point in my life.
I enjoyed the perspective her research provides of how differently girls develop than boys. Gilligan uses examples all throughout life to illustrate these ideas; from playing as children, to navigating through crises and the workplace to maturity and harmony in relationships. Her thoughts and research help for a woman to not feel so out of touch, but rather more in tune to her own ways of seeing the world, knowing those ways are not unusual.
I enjoyed the perspective her research provides of how differently girls develop than boys. Gilligan uses examples all throughout life to illustrate these ideas; from playing as children, to navigating through crises and the workplace to maturity and harmony in relationships. Her thoughts and research help for a woman to not feel so out of touch, but rather more in tune to her own ways of seeing the world, knowing those ways are not unusual.
January 8, 2016
I understand and respect the significance of this book for it's time. I am thankful for Gilligan's attempt at providing a women's perspective and I agree that women have been neglected by psychology. I recommend reading the book not for an understanding of sex differences but for a historical perspective and an opinion piece on women at Harvard at the time.
Gilligan's "research methods" are flawed. First, her sample is incredibly small- far too small to make any generalizations about the female population. Second, she mainly relies on self-report. Third, she doesn't actually provide any convincing "empirical" evidence.
Gilligan over-generalizes her research on a few women- to the female population as a whole. She claims these differences in men and women are biological (as opposed to cultural) without any convincing evidence.
Gilligan's "research methods" are flawed. First, her sample is incredibly small- far too small to make any generalizations about the female population. Second, she mainly relies on self-report. Third, she doesn't actually provide any convincing "empirical" evidence.
Gilligan over-generalizes her research on a few women- to the female population as a whole. She claims these differences in men and women are biological (as opposed to cultural) without any convincing evidence.
November 28, 2010
A quick read and highly recommended. This book is Gilligan's response to years of academic study of moral development that had "just happened" to focus solely on males. Her critique is devastating and it is almost unbelievable that so much work was done with such a clear gender bias. Gilligan sets out a very believable "parallel path" of women's development that, satisfyingly, converges toward the same major issues that men struggle with, but from a different direction. I always like reading books with extensive oral interviews with "regular people", where much of the author's work is simply to allow people to speak for themselves. She is not quite Studs Terkel in this dimension, but I think this is an inspiring piece of qualitative research nonetheless.
February 15, 2015
It's hard to believe this book was written in 1982, and hard to believe I missed it then. I've known about Carol Gilligan regardless, but never went to the source to read her directly. All these years later, the book still offers invaluable insight about women, our differences in thinking, communication, values, and behavior. But she also sheds light on the history of being measured against men - and the fallacy of having men be the barometer of women's innate strengths. Excellent book, clearly written, making a great deal of sociological and psychological study completely accessible to the layperson.
March 2, 2015
As someone who now studies normative ethics, or the framework for values within morality, the author presents a practical and logical picture of variables which influence morality. Specifically, the author noted that by restricting the female voice, unwittingly perpetuated a male-voice civilization, which becomes a male perspective generalized to both male and female gender. Furthermore, despite differences between men and women, the author noted that it is not just about those differences, but differences in reality and truth which are matters of human relations. There are many takeaways from this book.
July 16, 2014
As background to current feminist theory, this would be important, but not on its own argument. Gilligan's thesis is that women have a distinctive way of talking, different from men. I seem to recall, and it has been a while, so don't quote me, that women's ways of communicating were to be considered better.
Anyway, I'm tired of research that looks at minute differences between men on average and women on average and makes a big deal out of that, while ignoring the enormous distance in range for either men or women.
Anyway, I'm tired of research that looks at minute differences between men on average and women on average and makes a big deal out of that, while ignoring the enormous distance in range for either men or women.
Read
January 2, 2009Honestly speaking, it is kind of difficult to review a psychology book that deals with gender to me. I was advised by someone to read this, and while I found some parts to be interesting, I can think of quite a few people who would completely rip on it. At the same time, there are some people who would really like it.
This is something that you would have to read and decide what you think for yourself. I do not feel confident enough to rate this book properly.
This is something that you would have to read and decide what you think for yourself. I do not feel confident enough to rate this book properly.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 160 reviews
