Bibliography
Jun. 6th, 2010 11:22 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
the_lady_lilyIn A Different Voice - Carol Gilligan
I read this because a lot of the professional development books I've been reading recently suggest it. It took me a while to work out why, but having finally managed to put two and two together, it makes a great amount of sense.
See, Gilligan looked at models of human development and realised that women seemed always to get stuck in them; they never reached the points of 'maturity' that were expected. What she realised was that all of these models of human development were actually based on the male experience, so she thought she'd go and see if a parallel path of development could be described for women, where it was possible to reach maturity rather than get stuck at the junior levels. The problem turned out to be (as it so often is) Freudian. The male models of development were based on identifying a separate identity for oneself, prioritising the individual, working out a legalistic basis of morality, that sort of thing. The alternative female model of development that Gilligan proposes instead values care and relationships over that individualism, and sees the network of relationships as being the site in which morality plays out. Let me let Gilligan say it for herself:
The point being, we're all trying to get to maturity together, but for men that development involves recognising the importance of relationships, while for women it involves recognising the importance of self.
Yes, yes, I know this sounds horridly like gender essentialism. Let's not forget, of course, that part of the expectation that 'women will care more about relationships' is about the social expectations they find themselves being presented with, so it is quite possible to argue for that as a constructed part of this role, and Gilligan thankfully says as much. I know it certainly speaks to my experience, the feeling of needing to put everyone else's needs before my own and the sense of relationships as being the most important thing to maintain, regardless of cost. It also helps make some sense of clashes I've had with my brother along the way, simply because of the different perspectives that Gilligan identifies.
Of course, the relevance of this to the world of work is that while women may primarily think in terms of relationships and sustaining them, men may primarily think in terms of legality, equity, applying the rules - which means it's quite possible to have a room of people just talking past each other, and thinking they're saying the same thing because language means different things for them. That's not to say that one has to 'think like a man' in order to get ahead, but just being aware of the starting point someone else may be coming from could very well be an important factor in communicating with them.
So. Interesting book, with very clear point about why it is a problem to take the male model as being the same as the human model, and a strong alternative. I'm sure there are plenty of problems with it, starting with the charge of gender essentialism and working upwards. But I found it helpful, and I can see why so many women writing about how to get ahead in the academic culture refer to it.
I read this because a lot of the professional development books I've been reading recently suggest it. It took me a while to work out why, but having finally managed to put two and two together, it makes a great amount of sense.
See, Gilligan looked at models of human development and realised that women seemed always to get stuck in them; they never reached the points of 'maturity' that were expected. What she realised was that all of these models of human development were actually based on the male experience, so she thought she'd go and see if a parallel path of development could be described for women, where it was possible to reach maturity rather than get stuck at the junior levels. The problem turned out to be (as it so often is) Freudian. The male models of development were based on identifying a separate identity for oneself, prioritising the individual, working out a legalistic basis of morality, that sort of thing. The alternative female model of development that Gilligan proposes instead values care and relationships over that individualism, and sees the network of relationships as being the site in which morality plays out. Let me let Gilligan say it for herself:
Thus in the transition from adolescence to adulthood, the dilemma itself is the same for both sexes, a conflict between integrity and care. But approached from different perspectives, this dilemma generates the recognition of opposite truths. These different perspectives are reflected in two different moral ideologies, since separation is justified by an ethic of rights, while attachment is supported by an ethic of care.
The point being, we're all trying to get to maturity together, but for men that development involves recognising the importance of relationships, while for women it involves recognising the importance of self.
Yes, yes, I know this sounds horridly like gender essentialism. Let's not forget, of course, that part of the expectation that 'women will care more about relationships' is about the social expectations they find themselves being presented with, so it is quite possible to argue for that as a constructed part of this role, and Gilligan thankfully says as much. I know it certainly speaks to my experience, the feeling of needing to put everyone else's needs before my own and the sense of relationships as being the most important thing to maintain, regardless of cost. It also helps make some sense of clashes I've had with my brother along the way, simply because of the different perspectives that Gilligan identifies.
Of course, the relevance of this to the world of work is that while women may primarily think in terms of relationships and sustaining them, men may primarily think in terms of legality, equity, applying the rules - which means it's quite possible to have a room of people just talking past each other, and thinking they're saying the same thing because language means different things for them. That's not to say that one has to 'think like a man' in order to get ahead, but just being aware of the starting point someone else may be coming from could very well be an important factor in communicating with them.
So. Interesting book, with very clear point about why it is a problem to take the male model as being the same as the human model, and a strong alternative. I'm sure there are plenty of problems with it, starting with the charge of gender essentialism and working upwards. But I found it helpful, and I can see why so many women writing about how to get ahead in the academic culture refer to it.
