• Log In

The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast

A Philosophy Podcast and Philosophy Blog

Subscribe on Android Spotify Google Podcasts audible patreon
  • Home
  • Podcast
    • PEL Network Episodes
    • Publicly Available PEL Episodes
    • Paywalled and Ad-Free Episodes
    • PEL Episodes by Topic
    • Nightcap
    • Philosophy vs. Improv
    • Pretty Much Pop
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • (sub)Text
    • Phi Fic Podcast
    • Combat & Classics
    • Constellary Tales
  • Blog
  • About
    • PEL FAQ
    • Meet PEL
    • About Pretty Much Pop
    • Philosophy vs. Improv
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • Meet Phi Fic
    • Listener Feedback
    • Links
  • Join
    • Become a Citizen
    • Join Our Mailing List
    • Log In
  • Donate
  • Store
    • Episodes
    • Swag
    • Everything Else
    • Cart
    • Checkout
    • My Account
  • Contact
  • Mailing List

Carol Gilligan vs. Christina Hoff Sommers

September 27, 2011 by Mark Linsenmayer 10 Comments

In an attempt to provide some of the criticism to Carol Gilligan's claims about female moral development, I found this exchange from the Atlantic online between Gilligan and "former philosophy professor" Christina Hoff Sommers, who had written an article called "The War Against Boys" in 2000, which blamed Gilligan for establishing a false picture of "America's teenage girls as silenced, tortured, and otherwise personally diminished" in the school system. Re. In a Different Voice, she refers to "108 studies of sex differences in solving moral problems... [that lead to the conclusion] that 'sex differences in moral reasoning in late adolescence and youth are rare.'" She also says there that Gilligan gave a later, equally unfounded analysis of boys, with a "darker, coercive side" that if taken seriously by educators would "cause them much misery."

Gilligan responds point by point, pointing out the literature where her methodology is described in detail, defending the assumptions motivating her study (i.e. that women were excluded from studies like Kohlberg's) as uncontroversial, and criticizing Sommers's take on her conclusions as much oversimplified. Sommers responds to that, trying to show that the evidence is missing to support Gilligan's claims, Gilligan responds that Sommers has ignored the major findings of her study and points out some specific details (e.g. gender gaps in tests), some third party education folks jump in to defend (and one to concur on the attack against) Gilligan, Sommers replies to try to undercut these third parties, and the thing goes on long enough that you will likely not want to read it, and as with most political battles, neither side convinces the other and the readers will go with the view they already favored before reading. Oy.

I've not read/seen quite enough of Christina Hoff Sommers to dismiss her as a conservative hack, but some keywords jump out at me in this video that make me suspect this: e.g. feminism fails because it doesn't have the conceptual apparatus to right communism and terrorism (sharia law!) (see 4 minutes in).

If you readers have reliable sources to share that can shed some light on this disagreement, or critical appraisals of Gilligan that don't reek of pure politics, please post them.

-Mark Linsenmayer

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Filed Under: Web Detritus Tagged With: Carol Gilligan, Christina Hoff Sommers, feminism

Comments

  1. Anonymous says

    September 27, 2011 at 9:41 am

    Sommers recently lost an Oxford-style debate over whether “men are finished”:

    http://intelligencesquaredus.org/index.php/past-debates/men-are-finished/

    Also:
    http://chronicle.com/article/Persistent-Myths-in-Feminis/46965

    Reply
  2. Daniel Horne says

    September 27, 2011 at 4:56 pm

    Hi Mark,

    What follows below is one of the earliest and least-politically motivated of the empirical critiques on Gilligan’s work:

    http://jbworld.jbs.st-louis.mo.us/science/mbahe/BioEthics/Articles/greenoongilligan.pdf

    Here’s the concluding quote, which summarizes well my feeling on the whole issue:

    Here, Gilligan’s research, as cited in the book, is unsatisfying. One study on abortion decisions was understandably confined to women subjects, and we consequently cannot compare how women and men think about this issue. Another study by Susan Pollak and Gilligan, after comparing the responses of men and women to a set of pictured scenes, maintained that women are made more anxious than men by the isolation that is involved in achievement, while men are made anxious by intimacy. However, a recent attempt to replicate that study raises serious questions about the way the pictures were classified to elicit the sex differences. Other classification systems reveal no tendency for the sexes to differ in their anxiety about intimacy or separation. Finally, Gilligan has not yet provided any evidence that boys and girls follow different developmental courses in their thinking about morality. The book’s only evidence concerning children’s responses to moral issues consists of quotations from two eight-year-olds and two eleven-year-olds. These quotations fit our stereotypes about boys and girls, and intuitively we may feel that Gilligan must be right. But can we remain satisfied with this level of evidence?

    We can only sound a warning: women have been trapped for generations by people’s willingness to accept their own intuitions about the truth of gender stereotypes. To us, there seems no alternative to the slow, painful, and sometimes dull accumulation of quantitative data to show whether the almost infinite variations in the way human beings think, feel, and act are actually linked to gender. Let us hasten to say that we are not arguing that the sexes do not differ in important respects. We only urge that claims about what these differences are should be subjected to the empirical tests that are the basis of social science.

    Department of Psychology, Stanford University

    The following article in that same journal also criticized Gilligan’s methodology, (I think the entire Autumn 1986 issue of Signs was devoted to critiquing Gilligan!), but I can’t find a link to the entire article free of charge:

    http://www.jstor.org/pss/3174053

    To be clear, I submit these not to take sides between a “Gilligan camp” or a “Sommers camp”. I have little use for either. I’m pursuing more of a meta-agenda here.

    Reply
  3. Daniel Horne says

    September 27, 2011 at 5:02 pm

    Correction: Winter 1986 issue.

    Reply
  4. Mark Linsenmayer says

    September 28, 2011 at 1:25 pm

    Thanks, Daniel, for tracking that down. I think this is relevant to Wes’s recent discussion here about science vs. philosophy. Yes, having lots of good data to back up the Gilligan’s claims is really necessary before one puts a great deal of investment into addressing them, but as an astute philosophical observation it still seems valuable to me. It seems strange that after all this time (since ’86 or since her book was written) we wouldn’t have some significant advance re. on the data side.

    Reply
    • Daniel Horne says

      September 28, 2011 at 5:41 pm

      True that; your concern is shared in current literature.

      Here’s a more recent paper — trying to improve upon, and not merely criticize — Gilligan’s approach:

      http://www.uiowa.edu/~grpproc/crisp/crisp17_2.pdf

      In the present study we approach the justice versus care debate from a new angle by examining whether gender differences in moral orientation exist on the automatic associative level. More specifically, using a “moral value” version of the IAT, we predicted that females would more easily associate care concepts with attributes denoting significance and justice concept with insignificance relative to males who would more easily associate justice with significance and care concepts with insignificance. Moreover, using a “Self” vs. “Other” self-concept IAT, it was predicted that women would more easily associate care concepts with themselves and justice concept with others relative to men who should more easily associate justice with themselves and care concepts with others. To our knowledge this is the first study to examine gender differences in moral orientation using implicit measures. Hopefully, this research will shed new light on and spur more studies on a classic research topic within the psychology of morality that has come to a halt.

      [….]

      Seventy-four students (31 males, 43 females; mean age 22.36 years, SD = 2.59) were approached on the social sciences’ campus and asked to participate in a study on moral perception. They first completed the self-concept IAT followed by the value-IAT and lastly filled out the explicit measures and provided demographic data. Afterwards they were debriefed and thanked for their participation.

      Reply
  5. Anonymous says

    September 28, 2011 at 4:30 pm

    According to Baumeister — in Is There Anything Good About Men? How Cultures Flourish by Exploiting Men (Oxford, 2010) — “the definitive review of research subsequent to [Gilligan’s] book is”:

    Gender differences in moral orientation: A meta-analysis.
    http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&uid=2000-15524-006

    Reply
  6. baobob says

    August 1, 2013 at 6:58 am

    Did Gilligan every make her “highly gaurded data” public. This is crazy. there is no such thing- and she cannot be taken seriously without publishing. It really raises the concern of “Academic Fraud” beyond belief, and makes anyone intelligent question if she even understands the concept of statistics and scientifiic method upon which she is trying to rest her credibility. The point of good data is that it stands. For those of you who claim Sommers was defeated in this or that debate, I think its clearly a phenomena of 10,000 brainwashed/biased people to 1 lonely “voice” arguing a different, more radical thought (that boys are not all bad) – how is that even a “conservative viewpoint”. Without producing the DATA, there is no debate and gilligan has already lost the argument.

    Reply
  7. Steven Burnett says

    June 9, 2014 at 12:22 am

    To Mark and Others,
    I apologize for necroing what is very likely a dead thread but I wanted to toss in a few cents. I concluded my psych degree and then finished my BS in chemical engineering. Carol Gilligan is probably the best distillate of the fundamental problems in the soft science community.

    First she kept her data guarded for the most part. What was released amounted to case studies. More importantly there has been absolutely no research that has successfully confirmed her work. Her Criticism of Kohlberg may be valid but she couldn’t prove it.

    Your statement of even mentioning Sommers as a conservative hack is a shameful display of a liberal confirmation bias. Please keep in mind that Gilligan is an avowed liberal feminist, and the criticism is less about the nature of her conclusion and more that every aspect of her work demonstrates a personal philosophy and confirmation bias than anything remotely resembling scientific rigor.

    Her stance is for all intents and purposes an ideological war on men without a shred of rational evidence to stand on. Its a shame that I spent so much money on a field that isn’t willing to pull its own weeds.

    Reply
    • Luke says

      December 23, 2015 at 9:57 am

      Re Steven Burnett & Mark Linsenmayer.

      On the issue of Sommers’ politics; from what i understand she is a soft liberal ie centrist. She does work for the AEI but think tanks commonly hire people with differing political viewpoints. However all this is irrelevant if her data checks out, and it seems that it does.

      Further, I am a socialist and i fully agree with Mark – who i presume is a conservative – when he points out the hatred towards men Gilligan and her ilk display, in both their ideology and work.

      And finally, i feel that these “radical” feminist are not in any way liberal, let alone radical. I feel they reside on the far right-wing. They are reactionaries.

      Reply
  8. Fumpadump says

    November 4, 2015 at 7:48 am

    Bravo, Steven Burnett. Someone has to call down these agenda driven non-scientists. I recall as an undergrad being presented with Gilligan by a fellow student as an example of real women’s studies scholarship that would stand up to scrutiny. Imagine how surprised I was when I read up on her and found out that this was not only not the case, but the exact opposite of true. Apparently my interlocutor had never been presented with the other side of the Gilligan scholarship controversy. That that could be the case at a top 10 university speaks volumes about the poor quality of women’s studies scholarship, and the presentation of its results.

    And I couldn’t agree more that the phrase “conservative hack” betokens a bias in its user , one of which he is evidently blithely unaware.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

PEL Live Show 2023

Brothers K Live Show

Citizenship has its Benefits

Become a PEL Citizen
Become a PEL Citizen, and get access to all paywalled episodes, early and ad-free, including exclusive Part 2's for episodes starting September 2020; our after-show Nightcap, where the guys respond to listener email and chat more causally; a community of fellow learners, and more.

Rate and Review

Nightcap

Listen to Nightcap
On Nightcap, listen to the guys respond to listener email and chat more casually about their lives, the making of the show, current events and politics, and anything else that happens to come up.

Subscribe to Email Updates

Select list(s):

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

Support PEL

Buy stuff through Amazon and send a few shekels our way at no extra cost to you.

Tweets by PartiallyExLife

Recent Comments

  • Theo on Ep. 308: Moore’s Proof of Mind-Independent Reality (Part Two)
  • Seth Paskin on PEL Eulogies Nightcap Late March 2023
  • John Heath on PEL Eulogies Nightcap Late March 2023
  • Randy Strader on Ep. 309: Wittgenstein On Certainty (Part Two)
  • Wes Alwan on PEL Nightcap February 2023

About The Partially Examined Life

The Partially Examined Life is a philosophy podcast by some guys who were at one point set on doing philosophy for a living but then thought better of it. Each episode, we pick a text and chat about it with some balance between insight and flippancy. You don’t have to know any philosophy, or even to have read the text we’re talking about to (mostly) follow and (hopefully) enjoy the discussion

Become a PEL Citizen!

As a PEL Citizen, you’ll have access to a private social community of philosophers, thinkers, and other partial examiners where you can join or initiate discussion groups dedicated to particular readings, participate in lively forums, arrange online meet-ups for impromptu seminars, and more. PEL Citizens also have free access to podcast transcripts, guided readings, episode guides, PEL music, and other citizen-exclusive material. Click here to join.

Blog Post Categories

  • (sub)Text
  • Aftershow
  • Announcements
  • Audiobook
  • Book Excerpts
  • Citizen Content
  • Citizen Document
  • Citizen News
  • Close Reading
  • Combat and Classics
  • Constellary Tales
  • Exclude from Newsletter
  • Featured Ad-Free
  • Featured Article
  • General Announcements
  • Interview
  • Letter to the Editor
  • Misc. Philosophical Musings
  • Nakedly Examined Music Podcast
  • Nakedly Self-Examined Music
  • NEM Bonus
  • Not School Recording
  • Not School Report
  • Other (i.e. Lesser) Podcasts
  • PEL Music
  • PEL Nightcap
  • PEL's Notes
  • Personal Philosophies
  • Phi Fic Podcast
  • Philosophy vs. Improv
  • Podcast Episode (Citizen)
  • Podcast Episodes
  • Pretty Much Pop
  • Reviewage
  • Song Self-Exam
  • Supporter Exclusive
  • Things to Watch
  • Vintage Episode (Citizen)
  • Web Detritus

Follow:

Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | Apple Podcasts

Copyright © 2009 - 2023 · The Partially Examined Life, LLC. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy · Terms of Use · Copyright Policy

Copyright © 2023 · Magazine Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in