Different Voices: Psychological Theories and Women's Development

Author: Carol Gilligan
Translator: Xiao Wei
Country: United States
Publisher:
Publish Date: 1999-02-01
Features: In his reflections on this issue, Freud began to conceptualize its resolution in terms of a more primitive connection with others, not as a sense of pure, ocean-like clarity, but as a "desire to unite with others in the present," a relationship driven by "altruism." When describing this drive to unite with others as an opponent of individuation development, Freud hinted at a developmental path previously overlooked by his own explanations (141)—a path that does not lead to separation through aggression but to interdependence through difference. In calling for this "altruistic" drive, Freud introduced a different moral concept, one that stems not from the limitation of aggression but from the maintenance of connection. Thus, according to Freud's play between happiness and culture, morality takes center stage, transforming the danger of love into dissatisfaction with civilization—a play that offers a negative interpretation of the role played by love in the "origin of unavoidable, fatal guilt" (132)—and another plot begins to emerge.
Under this altered perspective, connection does not appear as an illusion or as an explosive tendency toward transcendence but emerges as an initial feature of individual psychology and civilized life. Since "the human individual, while participating in the process of human development, is also pursuing the path of their own life" (141), separation seems to appear as an illusion, much like connection. However, as Freud observed, combining this sense of connection with his psychological structures not only alters the nature of instincts but also changes the expression of the self and the explanation of relationships.
In gender difference research, R. May (Robert May, 1980) identified "pride" as the "masculine way of fantasy," which diminishes and eventually disappears in projective imagination, extending Freud's narrative of the rupture of initial connection—experiencing an irreparable loss through separation, along with a glorious achievement story accompanied by catastrophic decline. However, May envisioned "care" as the feminine way of fantasy, tracing an unexplained path—a progressively intensified description of loss, in which connection, though achieved through separation, is ultimately preserved or restored. When interpreting life as a web rather than a succession of relationships, women describe autonomy rather than attachment as the pursuit of illusion and danger. Thus, women's development points to a different history of human attachment, emphasizing continuity and structural change rather than replacement and separation, offering a distinct response to failure and reshaping the metaphor of development.
I. B. Miller (1976), in discussing the problems of constructing intimate relationships through a master-slave model, emphasized that "women's developmental parameters differ from men's, so the same terms do not apply" (86). She found that psychology lacks a language to describe the structure of women's self-awareness—"a language capable of organizing and sustaining familial and relational bonds" (83). Yet, she recognized in this psychological structure the potential for a "more advanced, intimate way of life—less bound by current dangerous modes"—because self-awareness is not tied to the efficacy of aggression but to the recognition of the need for connection (86). Thus, in envisioning a more creative and cooperative way of life, Miller not only calls for social equality but also for a new psychological language that separates the description of care and connection from the vocabulary of inequality and oppression, believing this new language arises from women's experiences of relationships.
In the absence of such a language, the problem of psychologists' inability to understand women's experiences is reflected in women's failure to articulate their experiences and the distortion of those expressions. When the interconnectedness of networks is erased by the hierarchical order of relationships, when networks are described as dangerous traps that prevent combat rather than protect against danger, women increasingly doubt whether what they have seen exists and whether what they have recognized from their own experiences is real. These questions are not raised as abstract philosophical arguments about the nature of reality and truth but are posed as self-doubt within women's self-awareness, threatening their ability to act based on their perceptions and, consequently, their willingness to take responsibility for their actions. This issue becomes particularly critical during women's adolescent development, at which point thinking becomes reflective, and the problem of interpretation enters the very process of development.
When asked to describe their moral conflicts and the experiences of their choices, two 11-year-old children re-narrate the same story from vastly different perspectives, revealing the themes of adolescent development for both genders. The two children describe a school scenario where they face a choice about whether to speak up. For Jack, his dilemma arises when he decides to oppose injustice and protect a friend being "unfairly beaten and harmed" by seeking protection under a principle. After running to tell the principal, he then hesitates to reveal to another friend what he has already reported to the principal, because this friend hit someone only in retaliation. Not telling him would lead to his unjust punishment. In describing his dilemma, Jack focuses on whether it is right to break his principle of "practicing my vow" by keeping silent, as no one would know he had reported the principal. His conflict lies in whether he can justify his act of speaking up as fair and whether his caring behavior toward the two friends aligns with his moral beliefs. If his actions align with the standard of justice, he will not feel "shame" and will "be willing to take responsibility" for what he has done; otherwise, he believes he must admit to himself and his friend that he has made a mistake.
Amy's dilemma is different: she sees a friend take someone else's book. She frames the issue as a conflict of honesty and a response to relationships, hesitating to speak up at the risk of harming a friend. She faces the question of how to act given what she has seen and knows, so in her construction, both speaking and not speaking constitute a response. Just as Jack considers breaking his standards and his promise out of loyalty to his friend, thereby compromising his principles, Amy also considers breaking her friendship to establish a standard she believes in—a common and caring standard that protects people from harm. However, even with this standard in mind, she weighs the extent of harm each friend has suffered and considers the various factors of the situation to evaluate what the most likely outcome of her actions will be.
Just as Jack hesitates whether his act of speaking up for friendship violates his personal integrity, Amy also worries whether she has affirmed her beliefs at the cost of harming a friend. In describing her thoughts on how to act, Amy reconstructs the dialogue she has with her inner voice—a dialogue that includes not only others but also her own voice: "No one will know I saw this, no one will use it against me, but when you start sitting there thinking about it, you realize that someone will know—you've always been sure you didn't say anything, and that really bothers me, because my friend is sitting right there. Did someone see my book? Where is it? Help me! I need this book for the next class. Help me find it! It's not here, where is it?" She thinks that if you know about this, it's even more important to say something. You know you're not just gossiping, because you know it's better to say it."
Because she realizes that her silence in the face of others' distress makes hiding a failure of care, and because speaking up is not gossip in this relational context, this dependent analysis of the background can lead to shifts in interpretation. For instance, the changes in the relational context might turn her caring behavior into an act of betrayal.