Why psychological theories are incomplete IN FULL | Carol Gilligan

Psychologist Carol Gilligan discusses her life's work listening to women, too often excluded completely from the theories that we take for granted.

What have we been excluding?

In this in-depth interview, Carol Gilligan delves into the biggest studies she conducted throughout her decades-long career as a psychologist — the very same studies with which she shook-up and upended the patriarchal frameworks of the discipline itself. From her pivotal 1980s book In a Different Voice to her most recent work In a Human Voice, she explains how the voices of men and women are not different; rather, they differ because they are gendered by the structures which aim to cover and silence them, in order to preserve power.

#feminism #psychology #women

Carol Gilligan is an ethicist, psychologist and Professor of Humanities and Applied Psychology at New York University. She is a feminist icon, and the mind behind the revolutionary "ethics of care". She is best known for her now classic work In a Different Voice.

00:00 Introduction
00:33 Women's voices left outside study of moral development
01:58 Differences between men and women
03:25 Most recent book
04:15 Patriarchy
06:49 The return of stereotypical gender norms
08:41 Voices going undercover
15:29 Impact of silencing women on philosophy and ethics
17:46 The Golden Rule
20:46 Who influenced me the most

[TheInstituteOfArtAndIdeas]

What else might we be excluding from our theories in this moment? Leave your thoughts in the comments.

[Blink_]

She is brilliant. Context is everything.

[Childlesscatlaby]

I think she's right in going "beneath" the gender dichotomy. Beneath the water level are human constructs confused with reality. Looking temporally through history, humans have continually and gradually collectively increased their degrees of freedom. That freedom grants us with affordances to critique the status quo. Systems of justification are being exposed and the good ol boys don't like that one bit.
Once you discover new degrees of freedom, new opportunities for action, called affordances, become accessable. Our negotiation patterns reveal a lot.

We should be critiquing traditional negotiation cultural norms that preference limiting others' degrees of freedom. The age old obsession with behavioral control distorts affordance recognition which hides value from perception.

Reconfigurability fitness enables choice beyond entanglement in enduring conflicts

[constabul]

What is reason? the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.
not an analogy for masculine and feminine nor a destination box to create a fictional narrative for brainbabble. Anything said after, even if it could be misconstrued as some sort of predisposed or taught bias, is the speakers actual bias. Closer to that, then exposuring some grand understanding of an underlying exclusion.
People who 'help' others but never mastered themselves before pissing in the critical development pool.
Her politics has polluted her efforts to 'help' others.

[neologian]

I honestly don't know what she's on about. I'm nearly 60 and my entire life I've been aware that many studies indicate that men and women often think differently about moral problems, approach solving practical problems differently, and have differing approaches to solving ethical dilemmas etc. I can't help but think we know about these differences because the field of psychology has made deliberate attempts to ensure women's POV are represented in the field of psychology.
And yet her essential premise seems to be there's been a general failure to account for "different voices" (e.g. women's voices) in the field?? I'm having trouble reconciling my direct experience with that. Or is she simply say that although women have been part of these studies, their POV has been misrepresented or maligned due to gender biases??

[invariant]

whats the lifecycle of these psychological theories

[alflundgren]

Not to disagree with her or her point in general, but i dont know anyone who thinks of "reason" or "self" as masculine. Nor "emotion" as feminine. She said it so matter of factly, and even said the interviewer would give those answers, and honestly i think thats her bias.

[Betweoxwitegan]

So the girl who answered the question of whether or not he should steal the drug didn't actually answer the question? They actively avoided the direct question and veered to an optimum, i.e. where society should be structured in such a way whereby inelastic supply/demand is unconstrained by financial position, this is not answering the direct question of whether or not the man should steal the drug, it is an invalid answer imo. The answer is also not mutually exlusive to stealing the drug as the boy said to do, therefore I fail to see how it's a radically different way of viewing the problem, the boy answered your question directly and the girl answered your question with an optimal radicality, disconnected from the reality of the scenario.

[BeaStpartan]

Lame interview! watched the who video to hear something interesting and substantial.