Diversity

Devanika’s position in this chapter reflects eco-feminism, in that she equates respect for nature with a female perspective, and exploitation of nature with a patriarchal position. Gender is a sensitive topic right now, but the benefit of an academic environment is that we bring to such debates reasoned argument, reference to evidence and an objective stance. Although… a feminist methodologist might claim that statement in itself is a gendered position, valuing independence and objectivity over subjectivity and intuition. As we can see already, there’s plenty here to unpick.

Most research up till the late 20th century was based on all-male samples, from seat belt design to psychological experiments. For example, Lawrence Kohlberg studied moral development in boys by exposing them to ethical dilemmas. The best-known example was of a man who needs medicine to save his wife but can’t afford it. The question is whether he should steal it to save his wife’s life. The answer itself wasn’t as significant as the reasoning behind it – why they said yes or no.

Kohlberg classified answers into those that reflected various stages of moral development. Stage 1 is based on chasing rewards and avoiding punishment. Stage 2 is self-interest – what is good means what’s good for me. In the example given, stealing is bad, as he may get caught and punished. After the age of seven comes stage 3, where children want to please those around them and to be seen as good. For example, if social norms dictate husbands should protect wives, then he should steal the drug. Stage 4 reflects an awareness of law and order and obeying rules. Stealing is bad because it’s against the law, for example. According to Kohlberg, many don’t progress beyond this basic level of moral reasoning. However, he claims about fifteen percent achieve higher levels which require abstract reasoning. Stage 5 draws on notions of the social contract and gives rise to answers such as stealing would be good because human life is a more fundamental right than property. Stage 6, the highest level of moral reasoning, is based on concepts of justice and universal ethical principles and may call into question the social structures that give rise to such dilemmas in the first place.

Kohlberg’s theory of moral development was extremely influential, yet female respondents typically scored lower than males. This is surprising, as most studies on behaviour that include gender as a variable show the opposite. I’ve supervised hundreds of student dissertations on ethical consumption and sustainable business, and if there are gender differences at all, they lean towards female respondents showing higher scores on ethics or sustainability than male respondents. Would anyone like to offer a critical perspective on such results? 

Transcription note. The keen girl in the front put her hand up to suggest that most studies measure intentions, not actual behaviour. There followed a brief discussion of what that may mean. One student said women are under greater pressure to present as ethical. Another said this didn’t apply as questionnaires are anonymous. The girl in the front row claimed we internalise such expectations. We concluded we need to measure behaviour not just intentions. The level of critical thinking is improving measurably as the course progresses. 

Carol Gilligan, Kohlberg’s research assistant, challenged the scale’s validity because the sample used was all male and therefore reflected a masculine view of morality. Gilligan claimed women prefer to resolve conflicts in ways that strengthen relationships. Whereas men are more likely to adopt a ‘morality of justice’, preferring to justify ethical decisions based on abstract moral rules, women typically adopt a ‘morality of care’, based on values of inclusion or feelings of compassion or love. Therefore, studies of moral development based only on abstract notions of justice have a male bias.

These are not mere academic arguments – let me share with you a personal anecdote. One time, I was playing a board game and one player wasn’t enjoying the game and suggested a minor rule change. Two players were happy to change the rules because their goal was for everyone to be happy, but the other two wouldn’t accept any change in the rules. I can’t report a clear gender split, but the point is, would it be correct to say that sticking to the rules is objectively more ‘moral’ than amending them to keep everyone happy? Carol Gilligan thought not. She said society benefited as much from the subjective care and compassion women exhibited within their relationships, as by the ‘objective’ rules and regulations predominantly devised by men. 

You might assume feminists would applaud Gilligan for standing up for her gender, but they criticised her for gender stereotyping and perpetuating the exploitation of women. The argument goes that, in our society, most caring roles occur within families and are unpaid, and jobs in the care sector are paid poorly compared to jobs in other sectors. These are roles traditionally occupied by women. Thus, to assign care and compassion as feminine attributes is to perpetuate gender inequality. In other words, if Gilligan portrays women as more caring, and this hampers them financially, her view disempowers women as much as it seems to stand up for them. 

Transcription note. The lecture was interrupted by laughter from three lads at the back. I asked them what was funny. The ringleader said that honest people answering surveys would admit that they wouldn’t always be that ethical, but those who lie to appear better than they are would always tick the most ethical answer because they were actually very unethical. Then he said, ‘wouldn’t it be hilarious if this was the case and all research into ethical intentions was 100% wrong!’

 I thanked them for their insightful observations and told them I’d try to be pleased at this evidence of critical thinking, rather than concerned that much of our research could be wrong.

Feminist methodology also draws attention to the limitations of survey methods. They argue that surveys empower the questioner at the expense of the respondent. As we found in our Cuba example, how you phrase the question reveals all kinds of implicit assumptions about what’s important and what isn’t.

Can you provide some examples of how questions have power to either challenge or embed assumptions?

Transcription note. The students looked blank, so I offered an example.

Me: What assumptions are embedded in the question: ‘is dinner on yet?’

Cocky lad at the back: ‘it assumes I’m hungry.’

Me: Who makes dinner at home?

Cocky lad: My mum?

Me: How would your dad respond if your mum returned home and asked him if dinner was on yet?

Cocky lad: Erm.

The keen girl at the front put her hand up: He’d question his assumption that making dinner was just his wife’s job.

Me: Exactly.

Feminist methodology is sensitive to concerns that quantitative methods such as surveys may reflect and perpetuate power inequalities through assumptions hidden in the phrasing of the question.

Eco-feminism emerged in the seventies and developed into a movement that drew parallels between the exploitation of nature and the oppression of women by patriarchal society. Some branches also extend to include any oppressed groups, such as indigenous cultures or LGBTQ+. Radical eco-feminism highlights how both women and nature have been used as commodities to be exploited for cheap labour and resources. Another camp, cultural eco-feminists, asserts that women have a closer affinity with nature due to their maternal roles. Some branches have roots in spiritual notions of Mother Earth and nature-based religions. As before though, this approach can lead to accusations of gender stereotyping. Perhaps as gender roles are more relaxed and men increasingly participate in childcare, the gender element may fall away so that we may talk about notions of care and control without assigning specific genders to such terms. As Barry said in the story, ‘what about Margaret Thatcher?’ Indira Gandhi in the 1970s implemented a controversial sterilisation policy in India. Today, there are many high-ranking female politicians and leaders who appear more controlling than caring. 

I began this lecture talking about feminist ethics, so perhaps we should instead de-gender the discussion and refer to the ethic of care.