Sense of Self
There is one other way in which Carol Gilligan has moved beyond the confines of Lawrence Kohlberg’s world of abstract moral development. Gilligan confronts Erik Erikson’s assumption that one must gain a clear sense of self (stage of identity formation) before establishing a successful interpersonal relationship (stage of intimacy). Gilligan suggests that this is not always the case. For many women (and some men) the formation of identity and establishment of a successful intimate relationship are interwoven (each enhancing the other). In suggesting that the developmental issues faced by men and women might often differ, Carol Gilligan opened the door to a thoughtful consideration of differing ways in which women and men tend to gain a clear sense of self. She has been assisted in moving through this door by several theorists and researchers who were involved in the early years of the feminist movement in the United States.
Individuation
More than forty years ago, a psychotherapist, Nancy Chodorow (1974, 1978), offered an interesting comparative analysis of the childhoods experienced by males and females. Her insights subsequently influenced Carol Gilligan and many authors (such as Lillian Rubin and Deborah Tannen) who were writing during the second half of the 20th Century about differences between men and women. Chodorow first noted what is obvious to all of us: women did most of the child rearing during infancy in most societies at this point in time. Chodorow builds on this fundamental observation by suggesting that, in such a society, girls grow up learning how they are similar to their primary caregiver—both they and their mother being female. Boys, by contrast, learn how they are different from their primary caregiver since they are male and their mother is female.
As a result of this early childhood experience, Chodorow suggests that males grow up focusing primarily on their differences from other people. We are told from very early in our life as males that we are “different” from our primary mothering figure. Our society conveys in many ways that we must break away from our mother. We must not be tied to her apron strings. There is something wrong if we remain too close to our mother. We even have a label for such a man: “Moma’s boy.” As young men we learn to value autonomy and competition. We want to stand out in a crowd and gain a sense of independence. We want to be known as an independent young man who can “stand on his own two feet!”
In the world described by Nancy Chodorow, young women typically grow up focusing on relationships, whereas young men grow up focusing on autonomy. As young men we were smart about some things such as sports trivia (e.g. batting averages) and the latest triumphs of some caped crusader (e.g. Superman). However, we were blissfully ignorant about other things—such as the nature of intimacy and ways to “court a girl.” Unfortunately, these “other things” were ultimately of much greater importance. We now speak with great reverence of something called “emotional intelligence”[i] (EQ) (Goleman, 1995). Young men typically are challenged in this domain. As mature men we often never catch up to our female colleagues with regard to EQ.
