Kelly Lunani

Gender and Development

Compare and contrast the views of Nancy Chodorow and Carol Gilligan - analyze how their
views can help us understand contemporary issues facing the boy child and the girl child

INTRODUCTION

Nancy Chodorow and Carol Gilligan are two liberal feminist theorists whose theorists have
done much to enlighten people on gender development especially in childhood. Their
scholarly inputs offer conceptual tools necessary for analyzing feelings and character in boys
and girls with focus on how gender is learned and remitted.

Arguing within the psychoanalytic paradigm, Chodorow in The Reproduction of Mothering

(1978) examines how early mothering arrangements constitute gender. Accordingly, she
posits that, from their relations with their mothers, boys and girls are socialized differently in
as much as they are given gendered emotional dispositions. Girls get configured to be
relational and caregivers while boys are trained to be self-sufficient hence creating a gap that
results to emotional disconnectedness.

In ‘‘In a Different Voice’’ (1982), Carol Gilligan offers sharp criticism to traditional
approaches to moral development especially those of Lawrence Kohlberg. She discusses the
sexual essentialist mode of moral reasoning where girls are raised to reason within an ethic of
care based on connection as opposed to ethic of justice which boys are socialized to reason
within based on autonomy. Hers is a groundbreaking critique of male dominated
developmental theory and a better view of moral development.

NANCY CHODOROW - THE PSYCHOANALYTIC PERSPECTIVE ON GENDER

DEVELOPMENT

Nancy Chodorow’s work, particularly in her book The Reproduction of Mothering (1978),
draws heavily from psychoanalytic theory, especially the work of Sigmund Freud. She
explores how early relationships, especially with mothers, shape gender identity and roles.

KEY POINTS

Mother-child relationships

Chodorow’s opinion is that the initially primary attachment is that between the mother and the
child. But it is essential to note that this relationship is gendered. Chodorow states that girls
tend to achieve an identification with the mother because of proximity of this relationship.
Men adopt a caregiver self-image and become even more relationally-oriented. Males, for
instance, have a comparatively distant relationship with their mothers and are taught to other
themselves. This results to boys over-emphasizing the masculinity which entails separateness,
self- sufficiency and emotional unsociability.

Gender identity
According to Chodorow, gender identity is something that is acquire in the early stage of the
development process. One of the reasons is because Mum is typically the main care giver,
thus both male and female children tend to model on their mothers. The smoothening process
of differentiation and identification is all the more dissimilar in boys and girls hence the
distinct emotional orientation accorded to masculinity and femininity.

Gender socialization and reproduction of gender roles

Chodorow also notes how the mother-child relationship relates not only to the development of
gender, but of gender roles also. Because mothers are usually the primary carers they
unconsciously groom their child to conform to patriarchal roles thereby upholding the already
set roles for men and women.

CONTEMPORARY ISSUES FOR BOYS AND GIRLS

Boy child

Chodorow’s view implies that boys develop dangerous tendencies in the district that fails to
support their capability to express or... For example, there is a tendency that boys pay much
attention to their independency and rivalry, so they could have problems with the tenderness
and relating skills. In their article, Dudley and McDonald (2012) explain the effects of the
social construction of gender on mental health and how boys’ general avoidance of emotions
results in lifetime psychological experiences.

Girl child

Girls, as Chodorow says, may be more emotional and relational but are more likely to be
overinvolved and self-effacing. Often, they might be trained to be obedient, selfless in most of
their decisions, which contribute to problems like; low self-esteem, care giving burn out, and
lack of personal independence. Chodorow (1978) pointed out the daughter’s culture as wife
and mother and as a result most of them are denied education and employment.

CAROL GILLIGAN - THE ETHICS OF CARE AND GENDERED MORAL

DEVELOPMENT

Carol Gilligan is best known for her book In a Different Voice (1982), in which she critiques
Lawrence Kohlberg's theory of moral development for its bias toward male-oriented models
of reasoning and ethics. Gilligan emphasizes a gendered approach to moral development,
arguing that men and women develop different moral perspectives due to their socialization
and life experiences.

KEY ELEMENTS

Ethics of Justice vs. Ethics of Care

Gilligan identifies two distinct moral orientations. The "ethics of justice," which is typically
associated with male development, emphasizes principles of fairness, rights, and rules. In
contrast, the "ethics of care," associated with female development, focuses on relationships,
empathy, and the interdependence of individuals.

Moral Development

Gilligan’s research suggests that girls develop a moral framework based on relationships and
care, whereas boys tend to develop a justice-based framework that emphasizes individual
rights and fairness. This difference in moral reasoning, according to Gilligan, stems from the
different ways boys and girls are socialized to view their roles in society—girls are taught to
be more relational, while boys are taught to be more independent and rule-bound,

Critique of Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development

Gilligan challenges Kohlberg's stages, arguing that his model was based on male subjects and
failed to account for the experiences of women. She suggested that moral development is not
linear or hierarchical but instead involves a different kind of moral reasoning focused on care,
empathy, and interconnectedness.

Contemporary Issues for Boys and Girls

Boy Child

From Gilligan’s perspective it would appear that the boy child loses the social dimension
involved in the notion of justice and fairness at the expense of a sentiment and relational
cogito. Therefore, boys may suffer from an inability to show emotion, forgiveness, love or
tenderness or doing activities that are associated with girls. This could eventually lead to
issues like suppressed anger, inability to establish meaningful long-term bonds and ability to
view everything in strictly black and white instead of black and grey. In Kenya, teenage boys’
suicides increased and the leading cause as portrayed was the pressure surrounding boys about
being male. For instance, a report from the Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (KNBS)
presented in 2020 highlighted suicidal deaths among adolescents / youths; boys dominate the
list.

Girl Child

Girls, however, might be more in touch with the ethic of care, but it often has its implications
as well. They might even come into conditions where they only perceive value in their duty to
look after other people and do so at the cost of themselves. This could make them
uncomfortable phases as they were likely to experience some of the problems associated with
pathological caretaking trait including over-compliance, burning out, self-negation, and
demandingness during relationships. Gilligan (1982) notes that girls learn a context-bound
moral voice that is pro-care, which can be erased in science fields or STEM. As noted by
UNICEF (2021) report, Kenya stands as one of the three leading countries with the highest
teenage pregnancy incidence in East Africa, and the situation where thousands of young girls
drop out of school either due to teenage pregnancies or early marriage.
COMPARISON AND CONTRAST

Focus on Gendered Socialization

Both Chodorow and Gilligan emphasize the importance of gendered socialization in

childhood. Chodorow focuses on the mother-child relationship and how it leads to distinct
emotional orientations for boys and girls, while Gilligan centers on the moral development of
boys and girls and their different ethical orientations.

Moral and Emotional Development

Chodorow focuses on emotional development, while Gilligan’s primary concern is moral

development. Chodorow views boys as emotionally distant and girls as relationally nurturing,
whereas Gilligan contrasts the ethics of justice (associated with boys) with the ethics of care
(associated with girls). Both perspectives highlight how societal expectations shape emotional
and moral responses.

Impact on Contemporary Issues

Both theories help us understand the contemporary issues facing the boy child and the girl
child.

For Boys, Chodorow has pointed out that boys could have problems of intimacy building up
some kind of defense against their mothers and a drive towards autonomy. Gilligan’s
evidence proves that boys have issues in response to emotions and also indicates reflect fewer
awareness of how the relations impact moral dilemmas.

For Girls, according to Chodorow, girls are likely to become over-involved with caregiving
and on the other hand, according to Gilligan, girls might be involved with caring more than
justice thus, they are likely to have problems in coming out more forcefully in matters of
rights or injustice.

CONCLUSION

Psychoanalytic views of Erik Erikson are supported by twenty years of Chodorow and
Gilligan’s studies of the inner structure of boys’ and girl’s minds and moral. Chodorow’s
work focuses of mothers and children, which helps in understanding the emotional/relational
development of the children while Gilligan’s work focuses on different types of moral
reasoning due to gender socialization. Collectively, their thoughts provide useful
enlightenment and guidance on analyzing boys’ and girls’ status, prospects, and
struggles/successes in modern society, comprehending how much constructions of gender
influence boys’ and girls’ emotions, ethical bearings, and psychosocial selves.

REFERENCES

Chodorow, N. (1978). The reproduction of mothering: Psychoanalysis and the sociology of

gender. University of California Press.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development.
Harvard University Press.

Connell, R. W. (2005). Masculinities (2nd ed.). University of California Press.

Jackson, C. (2006). Laddishness and the construction of gendered identities in education.

Gender and Education, 18(4), 343-361. [Link]

Nabunya, P. (2017). Gender roles and the impact of early marriages on adolescent girls in
rural Kenya: An analysis of gendered power relations. Journal of Adolescent Research, 32(2),
129-148. [Link]

Ocholla-Ayayo, A. B. C. (1997). The sociology of the family in Kenya. Cultural and Social
Anthropology, 22(1), 18-36.

Mwangi, S. M. (2015). The role of gender in educational achievement in Kenya: A focus on

primary school pupils in rural areas. International Journal of Educational Development, 42,
56-65. [Link]

Kivuto, S. N. & Kungu, L. (2019). Gender and educational inequalities in Kenya: An analysis
of the barriers faced by girls in secondary education. Journal of African Education Studies,
45(2), 214-230.

Mugenda, O. M. (2003). Gender and education in Kenya: Challenges and progress. Kenya
Education Review, 21(4), 45-59.